Digital billboards are a dangerous distraction
Rolling through the Missouri countryside is soothing and restful. From wide, brown rivers and low, rolling hills in the east to the wooded Ozark mountains or table-flat western plains, there’s something special in the landscape — and usually something garish marring the view.
Missouri is the billboard state. The “Exit here for Walnut Bowl Factory Outlet” state. The “This Space for Rent” state.
Seven years ago, lawmakers tightened the rules to control the unruly explosion of roadside billboards. But thousands of “nonconforming” roadside signs remain, grandfathered in when the new law was passed.
Those are signs that wouldn’t be permitted under current state laws and cannot be replaced when they wear out.
A new bill moving through the Legislature would change that, opening the door for them to be “upgraded” and remain in place, only uglier than they are now.
Senate Bill 57 is billboard amnesty. It would allow those junky “nonconforming” signs to be replaced with even more garish, distracting digital billboards. These high-tech signs contain television-like screens that display rapidly changing messages. They’re designed to be eye-catching, and they are. That creates a potential safety hazard, especially along two-lane state highways.
Another provision would allow owners of nonconforming billboards to rebuild them if they’re torn down for the reconstruction of Interstate 70 or Interstate 44.
Given the state’s current financial problems, big road projects are not likely to happen soon. But if and when they do happen, it would present a perfect opportunity to reduce the visual clutter.
About 95 percent of the state’s current billboards are nonconforming, mostly because they are too close together. In 2002, the state law was changed to require that billboards be at least 1,400 feet apart instead of the previous 500 feet. The wisdom of that change should be obvious to anyone who’s driven past forests of billboards along any major interstate highway in Missouri.
If SB 57 sounds like a billboard industry wish list, there’s a very good reason: That’s exactly what it is.
The bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Bill Stouffer, R-Napton, has introduced similar measures in past years. He argues that his bill would save taxpayers money — about $60 million if the two interstate highways were expanded or rebuilt. That’s because reconstruction would require removal or relocation of existing billboards, and the state would have to pay compensation both for the cost of the sign and its lifetime earning power.
It’s difficult to imagine that a billboard advertising Jesse James’ hideout cave or a walnut bowl factory outlet has much lifetime earning capacity — especially when it doesn’t comply with existing standards.
Several states already are moving to block new digital billboards because of their potential to contribute to accidents. Driver distraction — taking your eyes off the road — is a leading cause of highway crashes.
Missouri needs fewer billboards, not more of them, and certainly not more digital ones. SB 57 is a bad idea for Missouri.
I don’t have a problem with billboards, but these new digital ones are just too darn bright.
Just another lefty biased opinion from an editor with no facts and a distortion of the ones he presents. In a time where we need the economy to turn around, isn’t it nice the companies are spending money on advertising? And that as americans we embrace tecnology. Next thing from this editor maybe that we must ban flashing Christmas lights cuz someone may drive off the road.
Billboards in general are a form of visual pollution. The digital billboards are annoying, distracting and a waste of energy and resources. In this day and age of near-universal connectivity, billboards are losing their relevance and effectiveness.
I always thought the problem with our billboards was they were not creative. They were all the same sized rectangles unlike other cities I visit. Detroit used to have very creative automotive displays, NYC has a lot of landmark billboards. A pilot once told me that pilots landing at LGA use a particular billboard to know when to put the flaps down. I can’t say I like the digital displays, to me it looks cheap. I do like billboards along 70 on the way to KC. It breaks the boredom. I can say, however, as someone who worked in advertising for a time and later as someone who bought a lot of advertising, that done correctly, billboards are a great support medium. They, like everyone else whose business model depends on advertisng are struggling because of the internet diluting ad budgets.
Billboards are an important option locally for political free speech. How else can a group get a political message out to all of St. Louis for $4000 a month?
Yeah, these billboards really look nice. I especially miss the one that used to be on 55 between Arnold and Imperial. The WHO’S YOUR DADDY DNA testing billboard. That one was real impressive to people from out of state, I’m sure.
I certainly agree that digital billboards are a dangerous distraction. However, I go further to suggest that all billboards are an unnecessary violation to the environment. I do not recall anyone asking me to vote on these narcissistic monstrosities. If billboards are free speech, why is not gang graffiti and other forms of vandalism not considered likewise? Most of Europe has severe restrictions on the size and scope of roadside advertisements; I do not see European businesses suffering for it. I recall Burma Shave advertisements that were unimposing, modest, subtle, and most importantly to commerce, effective. Modern society demands bigger, more frenetic, louder, more “in your face” solutions–not everything we do is progress. Billboards are pollution.