Laserfiche WebLink
<br />animated signage, which mimic movement or have hisJt- <br />intensity flashing lights in order to Gain the viewer's <br />artention. <br />The 1958 Federal-Aid Highway Act established federal <br />controls for signs illuminated by flashing, moving or <br />intermittent light. The 1965 Federal-Aid Highway Act <br />did not contain any reference to lighting controls. <br />Federal/State agreements were entered into with all <br />States, however, referencing lighting restrictions on signs <br />in commercial or industrial areas, based on customary <br />usage. <br />Initially, federal rules and regulations restricted the use <br />of electronic message centers on the primary and <br />interstate highway system to displays of time, <br />temperature, and "public service messages." The <br />restriction no longer stands, as it is an obvious instance <br />of content control. <br />Over time, as the technology advanced, the federal <br />government began to reseazch the signs and their impacts <br />on traffic safety. The newer signs allowed for changing <br />messages, and some of these newer signs had been <br />constructed along the highway in certain areas exetnpt <br />from federal controls. The research showed that neither <br />flashing, animafion, nor co c an~e ad im acted traffic <br />sa ery. <br />-. <br />Lt 1978; the Surface Transportation Assistance Act <br />amended the hiehway beautification law to allow on- <br />premise electronic message centers along the Interstate <br />and Federal Aid Primary road systems, subject to <br />individual state law, so lone as the messages were <br />sequenced on and offin a manner that did not constitute <br />"flashing." Congress refrained from settingatimelimit <br />on the sequencing of the messages, instead opting for a <br />"reasonable interval"standard. <br />While the definition of"reasonable interval" is not clear <br />it is evident that any control of copy change time interval <br />must be exercised with caution to avoid those time limits <br />becoming de facto content control. This is a tikely risk <br />as the copy change time interval necessary for effective <br />communications is dependent in par[ on the physical <br />characteristicsofeachmessagecenter. Amultipleline, <br />text only message center is normally likely to display a <br />complete message. In that case, the time interval between <br />copy changes can be several seconds. A short, single <br />line message center operated by a small business may <br />only be able to display a single word at a time. The <br />copy must, therefore, change at a faster rate that enables <br />comfortable reading of the message or ttte business is <br />unable to communicate. <br />The necessary sequence for a message is also dependant <br />on the content of the message, the speed of the traffic, <br />sgnline 40.pmE 6 3H3/2003, 12 d5 PM <br />-~ 1 3 - <br /> <br /> <br />State highway departments have realized the va/ue of electronic message centers, and are increasingly using them to <br />inform and direct traffic in large metroplitan areas, where government studies have demonstrated their value in easing <br />traffic congestion and increasing traffic safety. <br />