Laserfiche WebLink
Message Signs." This report was an exhaustive analysis of the safety implications <br />of EMDs used along highways. The report highlights the inconclusive nature of <br />safety studies that had occurred to that time, some concluding that roadside signs <br />posed a traffic distraction, and others concluding that roadside signs do not cause <br />traffic accidents. In view of the inevitable use of the technology in signage, the <br />report made some sensible observations about traffic safety considerations for <br />such signs: <br />1. Longitudinal location. The report recommended that spacing standards <br />be adopted to avoid overloading the driver's information processing <br />capability. Unlike the standard for sign regulations in 1980, most <br />communities today have spacing standards already integrated into their <br />sign codes. <br />2. Lateral location. Often referred to as "setback," the report initially <br />recommended the common sense requirement that such signs be <br />placed where the risk of colliding into the sign is eliminated. This was a <br />legitimate concern, as such signs were being contemplated for use by <br />highway departments themselves in the right-of-way. Private use of <br />roadside signs is generally limited to locations outside the right-of-way, <br />so this should not be a significant concern. The next issue addressed by <br />the report was visibility. The report advocated the minimum setback <br />feasible, stating that "standards for lateral location should reduce the <br />time that drivers' attention is diverted from road and traffic conditions. <br />Generally this suggests that signs should be located and angled so as to <br />reduce the need for a driver to turn his head to read them as he <br />approaches and passes them." This can best be handled by permitting <br />such signs to be located at the properly line, with no setback, and <br />angled for view by oncoming traffic. <br />3. Operations: Duration of message on-time. The report states that the <br />duration of the message on-time should be related to the length of the <br />message, or in the case of messages displayed sequentially, the <br />message element. For instance, based on state highway agency <br />experience, comprehension of a message displayed on a panel of <br />three lines having a maximum of 20 characters per line is best when the <br />on-time is 15 seconds. In contrast, the customary practice of signing <br />which merely displays time and temperature is to have shorter on-times <br />of 3 to 4 seconds." Since this 1980 report, state highway agencies have <br />adopted, for use on their own signs, informal standards of considerably <br />shorter "on" time duration, with no apparent adverse effects on traffic <br />safety. Federal legislation affecting billboard use of electronic signs- ------------ <br /> <br />25- <br />