As much as I am a proponent of more, not less, transparency in the workings of two of our national on-premise sign associations, I must admit to being flummoxed by the joint press release from the ISA and USSC regarding electronic message centers. You already may have seen this opening sentence:

“The two major on-premise sign industry trade associations in the United States, the International Sign Association (ISA) and the United States Sign Council (USSC) , have joined together to examine the legal and scientific challenges presented by digital sign technology in order to protect the ability of sign companies to sell and small businesses to use electronic message center (EMC) signs, and to work with government officials to ensure that these innovative signage systems are used effectively and appropriately in the driving environment.”

The PR mentions “increasingly strident assertions of anti-sign groups and individuals” that advocate EMC restrictions or bans. Readers of this column know that this reference includes such individuals as the human factors consultant, Jerry Wachtel.

HAVE MEETING. TELL WORLD.
The confusion that ensued after the press release hit the e-mail inbox is instructive on two points. First, it was predicated on the mere fact of one meeting between the top officials of each association. I do not remember, in my entire career, that a meeting in and of itself merited a press release.
Second, with the public flourish done, now “mum’s the word.” One official who attended the meeting said, “There will be opportunities in the future to elaborate on details and such. Sorry I can’t be of more assistance now.”
Another attendee at the meeting put this on the record, “I would be glad to discuss the EMC Association Group with you, but it would not be a very interesting conversation for you I am afraid.  The Release speaks for itself, and we are really in the beginning stages of this effort; to comment would be premature and could potentially be misleading, as we cannot predict with accuracy the final end product or products that the group will achieve. The proverbial stay tuned is in order, and beyond that we cannot comment.”
The advantage of surprise certainly has been lost in combating those “increasingly strident” anti-EMC forces. That is regretful, and increases the pressure on this group to deliver battle-ready tools in the near future.

KUDOS FOR CRAWFORD
Last April, the consultant Jerry Wachtel released a 190-plus-page report titled, “Safety Impacts of the Emerging Digital Display Technology for Outdoor Advertising Signs.” On the surface, the report was meant to be a “review” of existing academic literature and studies on EMCs in their outdoor advertising application.
The report was itself not a new research study, but purported to prove that EMCs cause traffic accidents, due to driver distraction. You could presume that a planner would read portions of this report and assume that its main theory was correct since its sponsor was the supposedly objective group, the federally-funded National Cooperative Highway Research Program.
But, of course, there was no proof actually offered in the Wachtel report regarding EMCs and traffic accidents. One should wonder why the author needed 190 pages to assert his case. To the rescue of this inanity comes Rick Crawford, of Mercer Sign Consultants and the legislative consultant to the USSC.
As the year started, Crawford was working on a final version of a rebuttal. The report is a thorough analysis, section by section, of the Wachtel literature review. Here, the USSC has made a splendid effort to get the facts out. Contact them for a final copy of the Crawford rebuttal.

PEER REVIEW IN ACTION
A common tactic of anti-sign instigators is to deride industry research as “paid for” research. But all research is paid for by someone or some group. The portfolio of USSC research, indeed, has been adopted by, reviewed by or otherwise published by groups such as the Traffic Research Board, the American Planning Association and the International Code Council.
Case in point is the recent annual meeting of the Traffic Research Board. Pennsylvania State University researchers, including Martin Pietrucha and Philip Garvey, presented to their peers in the traffic engineering community their recent study on internally versus externally illuminated signs.
That audience got to work through the details of the Penn State study, funded by the United States Sign Council Foundation but conducted by academic and credentialed researchers. Briefly, the TRB group heard that:

•    Poorly visible on-premise commercial signs have been associated with reduced safety;
•    Drivers detecting these signs with reduced lighting are more likely to perform erratic, last-minute driving maneuvers;
•    Penn State research has demonstrated that internally-illuminated on-premise signs have 40 to 60 percent greater visibility than externally illuminated signs on a controlled test track;
•    Yet many jurisdictions, for aesthetic reasons, are banning internal illumination of signs;
•    This new research moves from the test track to real-world driving conditions;
•    Research results clearly demonstrate the superiority of internally-illuminated signs across a variety of driving conditions, and signs of varying offsets, sizes, shapes, and colors.

NATIONAL SIGN CODE?
The newest edition of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices is now available. For an electronic copy, go to http://www.mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/kno_2009.htm. The MUTCD is used by the states for that class of signs known as traffic control devices. These signs are those directing traffic on public streets and highways and private roads that are open to the public.
The MUTCD reflects vast amounts of traffic engineering and safety research. For that reason alone, it is worth everything to cement arguments about sign visibility issues such as adequate conspicuity.
With the new MUTCD, there also appeared a reference to it in our industry that it was a “national sign code.” I would want to be careful with that description. The MUTCD regulates public highway signs, not on-premise commercial signs. No drafter of a new sign code for commercial on-premise signs would consider the MUTCD to be the source for language. Let’s not confuse the two.