To the editor: In typical vogue the dialogue over digital billboards has the proponents extolling the utopian virtues of the idea. There are many downsides to think about. Along with the quantity of sunshine produced, one of many predominant points is the fixed altering of the signage each eight seconds. It’s a cheap concern and definitely a distraction for drivers. The answer is so easy. Restrict info adjustments on these billboards to each half hour or another prolonged timeframe.
Robert Bachmann, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: We should always all the time be leery when metropolis officers recommend a proposal shall be “really eradicating distractions from the roads” as within the case of 80 digital billboards proposed for L.A. freeways and roadways. Particularly when the group advocating for this concept isn’t elected however fairly, appointed by the mayor. Whereas the aspect opposing this “monetary windfall” suggests this proposal can be tantamount to growing visible blight — and including to mild air pollution, an issue at the moment plaguing Los Angeles.
I surmise that turning these billboards off at midnight may have the specified impact of much less air pollution, proper? However let me remind of us in regards to the disoriented higher white-fronted goose that landed throughout a recreation in Dodger stadium, with brilliant stadium lights. Extra dire results shall be created as soon as extra of those billboards are erected.
Take a drive down Wilshire Avenue. Very near the Wiltern theater is a big distracting billboard and I’ve witnessed close to accidents happen virtually each time I’m within the space. I’d be curious to know what number of accidents happen given the extent of distraction from this one billboard plastered on the aspect of a tall constructing. So why town needs to position these on freeways, the place rushing autos and distracted drivers are a part of the on a regular basis expertise, boggles the thoughts?
Think about for a second — if bushes generated the sum of money these billboards will carry into the coffers, how extremely stunning this metropolis would look as billboard firms would race to position increasingly! As an alternative, officers are lauding a brand new income stream known as digital billboards.
Kathryn Louyse, Glendale
..
To the editor: The mayor and the planning fee show the identical blind, gullibility that plagues Metro. The billboard firms know that dangling the “income” bait will get them within the door. Metro’s declare of visitors or public security alerts is meaningless. The one winners, as typical, would be the billboard firms that look to reap income and may have an extra toehold on proliferating extra digital indicators elsewhere.
Rex Altman, Los Angeles
..
To the editor: Metro’s proposal to put in 80 digital indicators is a very dangerous thought. Distracted driving is a big situation: Taking your eyes off the highway for simply two seconds doubles the danger of a crash.
Have any of the plan’s proponents pushed in Los Angeles these days, or are they conscious of the growing ranges of harmful driving? Digital indicators are a visible, light-polluting blight. Extra essential is their sole goal to attract drivers’ consideration away from the highway and to their promoting photographs — relegating visitors and amber alerts to the shadows.
Close to metropolis landmarks, bustling intersections, on busy freeway, and adjoining to residential streets, these big indicators are brightly lit, with altering flashing photographs that function till midnight. Additional, they disorient nocturnal wildlife and contribute to the annual dying of tens of millions of birds. This program is about earning profits because it places drivers and pedestrians in danger. Metro and the powers that be should discover methods to bolster the coffers with out placing L.A. residents in hurt’s method or marring its iffy visible panorama.
Mary Proteau, Los Angeles
