Photo courtesy OAAA

It’s almost the end of the year, so time to expect the long-awaited “Phase II” of federal research on digital billboards and related impact (if any) on driver distraction. (The sponsoring agency in early October said it expected to release the Phase II study “within a month or two.”)

 

REVIEWING PHASE I

Let’s take a step back to how this potentially significant study came about. First, don’t call them “billboards”. The nomenclature used by the sponsor—the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—is “commercial electronic variable message sign,” or CEVMS.

 

The Phase I of the CEVMS research began in January 2008 and was, yet again, a review of research related to outdoor advertising displays and driver safety. This Phase I CEVMS study was coordinated with another research review (summarized in an earlier column) titled “Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs.” 

 

Both studies, according to the FHWA, “begin with the understanding that, despite years of research, there has been no definitive conclusions about the presence or strength of adverse safety impacts from CEVMS.” Translated, this means, we have not been able to connect the presence of billboards with traffic accidents but we are going to keep trying no matter what.

 

This Phase I study first considered crash rates on highways with billboards, but also added a measurement of “safety surrogate” events. These are defined as “driver behavior in near-crash situations” such as “sudden braking, sharp swerving, or traffic conflicts.” 

 

The erratic driver behavior when a driver is trying to find a business—but can’t due to the low height of the monument sign allowed, I guess—would fall into the “safety surrogate” category. 

 

The second approach the Phase I study used was measuring driver eye glance behavior. The research theory is stated as: 

 

“the driver’s eye glances should be concentrated in the region of the roadway ahead, and any frequent or long eye glances away from this region toward other objects, including CEVMS, could be regarded as an indication of possible driver distraction. If the eye glances toward a certain object and away from the roadway ahead are sufficiently frequent or sufficiently long to exceed criteria established for safe driving, this outcome can be taken as an indication of a possible safety impact.”

 

So the FHWA wanted to look at crash rates, “safety surrogate” measures, and eye glances, which leads to Phase II of the study: real-world, on-the-road tracking.

 

ENTER PHASE II

Two cities were chosen—Richmond, Va., and Reading, Pa. Both areas have digital billboards (the CEVMS) and traditional vinyl displays and “other objects of visual interest.” Participants drove a car equipped with eye-glance measurement devices that had been installed by the FHWA. 

 

What was measured? The frequency of glances away from the road ahead, the percentage of time glances went to the CEVMS, the standard vinyl billboards, and those other objects of visual interest.

As of June, the field data collection was complete, but as noted, the contractors have not (as of early October) reported back to the FHWA with results. 

 

Why the anticipation for this, yet another federally-funded report on driver distraction and digital displays? Because state and local governments tend to put great stock into the guidance provided by FHWA. If the FHWA found that kangaroos hopping into the roadway caused driver distraction, bet that scores of states would impose pouch-free zones on the highways under their jurisdiction.

 

The outdoor advertising industry stands to be affected initially, since the objects studied in Richmond and Reading were, after all, billboards. But the on-premise sign industry fears—I believe correctly—that the research findings could be extended to cover its products as well. 

 

By the time you read this column, or weeks after, we’ll all know what the FHWA found—and the guidance it suggests going forward.

 

NEW INITIATIVE ON SUSTAINABILITY

Meanwhile, let’s consider another topic entirely. We all know it is of critical importance how our industry is perceived by the thousands of sign regulators across the United States. One of the areas where we can bring a positive story forward on our behalf relates to the environment and sustainability practices. 

 

A lot of great work on sustainability practices has been done by my colleague, Marci Kinter, the vice president for governmental affairs at SGIA. Now we have a new initiative from the International Sign Association, headed by Sapna Budev, ISA’s director of industry programs.

 

ISA surveyed its members recently concerning their own business and manufacturing practices and impact on the environment. From the data that I’ve seen, the results are encouraging. More than 80 percent of the members responding considered environmental issues as important, very important or critically important to their business. 

 

In what areas were sustainable practices being implemented? Manufacturing garnered the highest response, with practices such as recycling sign materials, ink and toner cartridges, etc. Also gaining high response rates were general energy conservation efforts and end of life product programs (where signs or parts of signs are recycled.)

 

The biggest disconnect between the efforts of ISA members and greater use of sustainable, green practices is in the areas of customer demand and interest. Here, 53 percent of respondents said less than 10 percent of their customers requested green products.  That’s not a good number, but just shows the need for education and investment.

 

Industry programs such as this need broad support. Over time, we all will win—both the environment and our companies. And those regulators across the table from us could someday view our products not just as effective communication tools but net contributors to the green quotient.