A revision to the City Ordinance governing the restrictions, use, and spacing of LED/Digital billboards has been forwarded to the City Council for approval.
If I understand this correctly, these revisions apply only to digital billboards, not digital business signs located on the business property. Examples of digital business signs that would NOT be affected are similar to those at Drillers Stadium, Sonic drive-ins, casino entrances, etc. The Sign Advisory Board has not addressed the issue of animated and flashing lights on digital signs located on the business property.
Among the revisions is language requiring 2,400 ft. spacing between digital billboards (facing the same way), as opposed to the 1,200 ft. separation that is required between traditional billboards.
Another important clarification is that non-conforming billboards (billboards that would be illegal today, except they pre-date the existing code and were "grandfathered in") cannot be converted to digital boards in the future.
Other revisions include:
Requiring digital billboards to display only static messages. When more than one static message will be displayed, the "dwell time" must be no less than 12 seconds, and the "transition time" no greater than 1 second.
The draft also includes language governing the brightness of digital signs, limiting them to 6,500 NITs during the daytime, and 300 NITs at night. The draft further prohibits signs "of such intensity or brilliance that they impair the vision or endanger the safety and welfare of any pedestrian, cyclist, or person operating a motor vehicle."
Draft of Ordinance Revision (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/Digital%20Sign%20Ordinance%20Draft.pdf%22)
I think what were going to find with this exception to "On Premise" Digital Billboards (like the new one on 169 south of 71st street) is that a lot of merchants can now go into the billboard business, selling time on their privately-owned LED billboards to anyone and everyone.
This wasnt practical before, when billboards were big paper or vinyl sheets that took professional craftsmen to change, but now that billboards can be changed and updated by an owner at home in his bathrobe on his laptop, the whole business is about to turn on end.
When these proliferate and start eating into traditional billboard sales a lot of people at Lamar, Whistler, Stokely etc. are going to crap all over themselves for planting the seeds of their own destruction.
Wonder if they thought of that?
That probably won't happen since a business sign regardless of its size and configuration once it is used for off premise ads it then falls under the billboard criteria and would probably be not allowed skip or crowd the billboard criteria for a given area....
If it is discovered it is being used for anything other than a business sign it would be required to remove anything other than on premise messages...
quote:
Originally posted by patric
I think what were going to find with this exception to "On Premise" Digital Billboards (like the new one on 169 south of 71st street) is that a lot of merchants can now go into the billboard business, selling time on their privately-owned LED billboards to anyone and everyone.
This wasnt practical before, when billboards were big paper or vinyl sheets that took professional craftsmen to change, but now that billboards can be changed and updated by an owner at home in his bathrobe on his laptop, the whole business is about to turn on end.
When these proliferate and start eating into traditional billboard sales a lot of people at Lamar, Whistler, Stokely etc. are going to crap all over themselves for planting the seeds of their own destruction.
Wonder if they thought of that?
In researching the big roadside digital billboards, one of the things I learned is that they are almost entirely owned by three companies: Clear Channel, CBS, and Lamar. They like the digital billboards b/c they can sell time on them to hundreds of different companies simultaneously (each ad appears for a few seconds and is viewed thousands of times/day) so the profit margin is much higer than traditional billboards.
However, I also learned that anything that distracts a driver's attention for 2 seconds or longer drastically increases the chances of an accident. (A friend of mine mentioned that as soon as the Cherokee casino installed their big digital sign on I-44, cars would be driving along and then screech to a halt to read about million dollar winners...unfortunately this sign would not be affected by the new ordinance language.)
One more tidbit I learned is that whenever you widen a road or highway, the government has to buy the billboards that are in the way. The digital billboards have come down in price, but are still in the $200,000-$500,000 price range. So these billboards could add significantly to the price of any road/highway expansion plans in the future...by millions of dollars depending on how many are present.
QUOTE:(A friend of mine mentioned that as soon as the Cherokee casino installed their big digital sign on I-44, cars would be driving along and then screech to a halt to read about million dollar winners...
Yeah, but....
Does anyone really believe many people would literally screech to a halt just because of a lighted sign... no matter how flashing or so called attention getting it is?
And I agree, some are being used ignorantly and offensively...
Any one who would actually screech to a halt to look @ the sign has other driving issues and should have their ability to drive at all questioned...
Like someone a while back elsewhere in this forum said of a Sonic led sign (which I agree they should explore their own software & realize there is a dim mode for night)a few blocks away, that it was so confusing and could be mistaken for an ambulance etc...
Please quit driving now if you REALLY cannot tell the difference between a sign X number of feet from the road and X number of feet in the air from an ambulance with flashing alternately red and blue leds at ground level travelling on the roadway itself...
Although some are not being used in as tasteful fashion as I would like, I personally am not distracted by these signs no matter how big or bright...
Good for you, if your not distracted. But keep in mind that the whole point of the signs is to distract you--to get the driver to look at the sign, not at the road. If you aren't being distracted, the sign company has failed to reach you.
quote:
Originally posted by In2neon
Does anyone really believe many people would literally screech to a halt just because of a lighted sign... no matter how flashing or so called attention getting it is?
Its not an everyday occurrence, but stuff happens...
The man who had a seizure driving past the Cherokee Casino at 193rd East Avenue and crashed into the retention pond, then the tractor-trailer driver rear-ending a street sweeper ("He stated that he glanced over at the sign for a second, which is kind of like a big-screen TV, and when he looked back he was right on top of the sweeper truck," Oklahoma Highway Patrol Trooper Sheridan O'Neal said.) so I really think the case has been made.
quote:
Please quit driving now if you REALLY cannot tell the difference between a sign X number of feet from the road and X number of feet in the air from an ambulance with flashing alternately red and blue leds at ground level travelling on the roadway itself...
What you see reflected in your rear-view window and peripheral vision isnt necessarily as clear as to sightlines as you describe, and the confusion can add seconds to a drivers reaction time.
quote:
Although some are not being used in as tasteful fashion as I would like, I personally am not distracted by these signs no matter how big or bright...
Its ok if you want to represent the sign industry's position -- I think it adds balance -- but I also think some of the arguments illustrate how unreceptive some sign companies are to the legitimate safety concerns these can pose if allowed to go unregulated.
There is a "libertarian" approach to all this.
You could simply not have the ordnance but allow people to prosecute in court if they believe a sign caused them to crash.
Then, every crash within sight of one of these things would mention the flashing sign. Pretty soon the billboard companies would get tired of paying really high insurance premiums.
Not sure if I agree with this idea, but thought I would throw it out there to chew on.
I forgot to mention that the revised sign ordinance language would also require digital billboards (again, these are different than digital business signs on the property of the business) to have automatic dimmers that would react to changing lighting conditions. (If a storm moves in and the sky gets dark...the signs would dim.)
As much as I wish Tulsa had the guts to ban ALL billboards and restrict the size and placement of all on-site signs...this revised ordinance is better than nothing.
My fear is that the sign companies will show up in mass to argue that the 12-second dwell time is too long. They, of course, want shorter dwell times to double or triple their profits and the number of advertisements that could run. However, the more often the sign transitions, the more distracting and dangerous it is to motorists.
If you care about motor safety, or if you just prefer a less garish hometown nightscape...I would recommend contacting your city councilor to express your opinion. (You know the sign companies will have plenty of staff on hand to ensure their voices are heard...don't be afraid to voice your own opinion.)
quote:
Originally posted by PonderInc
My fear is that the sign companies will show up in mass to argue that the 12-second dwell time is too long. They, of course, want shorter dwell times to double or triple their profits and the number of advertisements that could run. However, the more often the sign transitions, the more distracting and dangerous it is to motorists.
If you care about motor safety, or if you just prefer a less garish hometown nightscape...I would recommend contacting your city councilor to express your opinion. (You know the sign companies will have plenty of staff on hand to ensure their voices are heard...don't be afraid to voice your own opinion.)
The billboard industry has had a lot of input in the proposed language up to this point, if you look at all the exhibits.
It's that one second transition time between messages that will be used to sneak in all the explosions and "special effects". One second is thirty separate images (frames) and a lot can be programmed into thirty frames.
One second is also an eternity when talking about driver reaction time, as well.
I need to clarify one further piece of information:
The draft ordinance DOES restrict the brightness of "digital on-site business signs" (ie: Sonic) to the same intensity as the digital billboards. (6,500 NITs in daylight, 300 NITs at night.)
However, it does not restrict animation and flashing lights on the on-site business signs. (ie: It does not require them to be static, or apply the 12 second dwell time / 1 second transition time to the digital on-site business signs...as it does to the digital billboards.)
I would encourage you to let you councilor know that you are still concerned about animation on digital business signs, even though they will be dimmer. And I would ask that the 12 second dwell-time rule for billboards does not get compromised by the billboard industry.
The federal government will be completing its own study of the impact of digital advertising signs on driver safety in the next year or two. (Unlike those funded by the billboard industry.) The tighter we make the rules today, the fewer signs will be "grandfathered in" when the study reveals that digital signs actually DO impact driver safety.
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
the issue the council seems to be hung up on is the spacing. They dont want one major operator to permit all of the locations and shut the small guy (Whistler) out because of the 2400ft distance requirement.
I was happy to hear that the brightness and dwell time applies to on premise signs too, so Cosi and those other dumps are going to have to turn theirs down.
next, they are going to take up flashing....so Sonic and Sunshine furniture, you are next!
Only brightness was addressed with business signs--not dwell time (which is why flashing is still permitted).
Also, once a sign goes up, provided it goes up legally, a change in the law cannot force a company to take the sign down. It's "grandfathered" in. From what I understand, that is why the sign advisory board and the TMAPC recommended the 2400 foot spacing. If, somehow, it turns out LED signs are dangerous (more dangerous than regular billboards), the city will have already allowed the signs, and no one could be forced to remove them.
This will go before the City Council on Thurs 4/10. If you have an opinion about digital billboards (especially if you want to ensure they are limited as much as possible) you should contact your city councilor.
I think the spacing, requirement for static images with longer dwell time, and limits on brightness are all important. It never hurts to voice your opinion and help our elected officials make the right decisions....for all Tulsans, not just those who profit from billboard blight.
The Tulsa Sign Advisory Board wants to amend the sign ordinance to allow full-motion video animations on billboards, by changing the definition of "animation"
http://www.tmapc.org/tmapcworksession/flashing%20signs.pdf
The advisory board also wants to reduce the amount of time changeable copy signs remain static to a minimum of ONE SECOND, and allow animated transitions from one message to the next.
So in-between video animations, you would have a minimum of one second static display, or does anyone read this differently?
Hello, casino!
TMAPC will look at this at their worksession on the 25th at the new city hall building, after the regular meeting.
quote:
Originally posted by patric
The Tulsa Sign Advisory Board wants to amend the sign ordinance to allow full-motion video animations on billboards, by changing the definition of "animation"
http://www.tmapc.org/tmapcworksession/flashing%20signs.pdf
The advisory board also wants to reduce the amount of time changeable copy signs remain static to a minimum of ONE SECOND, and allow animated transitions from one message to the next.
So in-between video animations, you would have a minimum of one second static display, or does anyone read this differently?
Hello, casino!
TMAPC will look at this at their worksession on the 25th at the new city hall building, after the regular meeting.
Those changes are listed under subsection C which relates only to business signs not outdoor advertising signs. The dwell time won't change for billboards according to what I'm reading on that draft...didn't look at the TMAPC website to see if there was more.
That said, The messages (I read as: combination of letters/numbers)on a changeable copy sign (business sign - read Sonic signs) have to remain static for a minfimum period of one second per message but can use animation or frame effects to transion between messages. What is missing is a transition time. So as long as your words are static your animation (pictorials and graphics) can last all day?
Unfortunately the worksession, while open to the public is not open to public participation nor is it televised. If the TMAPC doesn't basically send these guys back to the drawing board or give the impression of not no but hell no then they will consider it at the next scheduled public hearing which would be the first Wednesday(?) in March.
I'll have to ask my INCOG mole what that advisory board is up to. This is the first I've heard of proposed amendment. But I'm thinking Hello Casinos...down Brookside!!! I sometimes enjoy seeing those small signs on the sides of bus shelters or subway entrances while I'm walking particularly if they're showing an animated weather radar map...whoops wrong city...I don't think I would care too much for some sort of animated sign grabbing my attention while I'm moving down a 5 lane arterial street at 45mphs surrounded by much larger steel boxes on wheels with other zombies at the controls.
quote:
Originally posted by OurTulsa
I'll have to ask my INCOG mole what that advisory board is up to. This is the first I've heard of proposed amendment. But I'm thinking Hello Casinos...down Brookside!!! I sometimes enjoy seeing those small signs on the sides of bus shelters or subway entrances while I'm walking particularly if they're showing an animated weather radar map...whoops wrong city...I don't think I would care too much for some sort of animated sign grabbing my attention while I'm moving down a 5 lane arterial street at 45mphs surrounded by much larger steel boxes on wheels with other zombies at the controls.
Im curious if you found anything out.
I suspect the newer industry-friendly councilors may wish to tweak the ordinances to closer match the capabilities of the sign technology before their terms expire (and was amazed at how much of the DAKtronics spec sheet was already adopted).
I have an alibi -- I think...
But seriously, this is a pretty risky solution to this sort of nuisance, IMHO. Getting the city council to reduce the brightness back down to the original levels would be more effective.
Billboard Cameras Hope To Catch Vandals
Those bright new LED billboards are being hit one after another. Five incidents which involve three billboards -- two of which have been hit twice by a large caliber bullet.
There is concern the bullets could hit someone. It could be someone in a nearby hotel, an office complex or a person driving by. Cameras have been installed and new billboards have a clear message in the hope the vandalism will end.
"That shooter is on camera. Right now the films are being analyzed, they're looking to see if they can get some face recognition or some tag numbers," says Joyce.
Police confirm several reports have been filed and the matter is being investigated. If caught, the vandals could be charged with a felony.
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0309/606821.html
(http://www.acc-tv.com/images/ktul/news/yh_billboardshootings_0309.jpg)
I think we should have an ordinance to prevent billboards from being erected inside the IDL. As we start to develop downtown this might become a serious consideration. I'd rather see the iconic downtown than a sea of video/stationary adverts.
I think that I shall never see
a billboard lovely as a tree.
Perhaps, unless the billboards fall,
I'll never see a tree at all.
Ogden Nash
Quote from: carltonplace on March 27, 2009, 08:22:44 PM
I think we should have an ordinance to prevent billboards from being erected inside the IDL. As we start to develop downtown this might become a serious consideration. I'd rather see the iconic downtown than a sea of video/stationary adverts.
I didnt see any billboards represented on the artist's rendition of the ballpark,
I wonder if that will change.
One of the good ideas Lady Bird Johnson had - get rid of billboards.
TMAPC just sent out a revised agenda for tomorrows meeting (April 1) that includes a proposal to change the rules for business signs and on-premise billboards (Changable copy signs), to allow signs to have animation (like a video screen) between messages, and that those messages only need be static for one second.
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/Digital%20Sign%20Amendments.pdf
This would apply to LED billboards that are on the business's premises (like the two giant ones on HY 169 by Mathis Brothers) as well as the Sonic LED signs, etc.
The meeting is at 1:30pm at the new city hall, if anyone would like to take off work to make your feelings known.
Quote from: patric on March 31, 2009, 11:40:19 PM
TMAPC just sent out a revised agenda for tomorrows meeting (April 1) that includes a proposal to change the rules for business signs and on-premise billboards (Changable copy signs), to allow signs to have animation (like a video screen) between messages, and that those messages only need be static for one second.
http://www.tmapc.org/Agenda/Digital%20Sign%20Amendments.pdf
This would apply to LED billboards that are on the business's premises (like the two giant ones on HY 169 by Mathis Brothers) as well as the Sonic LED signs, etc.
The meeting is at 1:30pm at the new city hall, if anyone would like to take off work to make your feelings known.
Crying shame I haven't been on to have seen this was coming. I'm honestly getting really sick of the giant screens that they claim to be billboards.
Quote
Billboard Cameras Hope To Catch Vandals
Those bright new LED billboards are being hit one after another. Five incidents which involve three billboards -- two of which have been hit twice by a large caliber bullet.
that right there proves my innoccense, I know that a few bullets wouldn't do the trick. Now if they all go up at once in a timed explosion, I will be finding an alibi.
What is the required "dwell time" for digital billboards in Tulsa?
I remember that the TMAPC recommended 12 seconds. The City Council, in their infinite wisdom and after minutes of consideration, eviscerated that number... but I can't remember what they settled on.
I thought it was 8 seconds.
I'm seeing digital billboards that appear to be 6 seconds.
And some signs don't appear to dim on overcast days.
Is anyone monitoring these new signs?
Quote from: PonderInc on July 09, 2009, 03:47:00 PM
What is the required "dwell time" for digital billboards in Tulsa?
I remember that the TMAPC recommended 12 seconds. The City Council, in their infinite wisdom and after minutes of consideration, eviscerated that number... but I can't remember what they settled on.
I thought it was 8 seconds.
I'm seeing digital billboards that appear to be 6 seconds.
And some signs don't appear to dim on overcast days.
Is anyone monitoring these new signs?
Not the city, nor the sign inspectors that the city was supposed to pay with the funding last winter.
The ordinance calls for 8 seconds between messages (dwell time), with one unnecessary "transition" second inbetween where they can do whatever they please for no reason whatsoever.
As for dimming on overcast days, the language
"notwithstanding paragraph 1221.C.2.e, a mechanism able to
automatically adjust the display's illuminative brightness
according to ambient light conditions by means of a light
detector/photo cell by which the sign's brightness shall be
dimmed."
...should have covered that, so if the billboard owner is just using the same timers they have been using on regular billboards they are in violation.
Of course, a sign inspector would normally be the one to determine if they were using a photocell or just a timer.
I have noticed the same thing on overcast days, so it appears rather widespread.
If enough people call the MAC then they will eventually get the message.
Does anyone at the City have a candela meter...or whatever you would use to measure NITs radiating from a digital billboard? It would be pretty funny if we have these specific light output maximums in the ordinance, but no one to measure them.
Oh, wait, that wouldn't be funny. It would be sad.
Quote from: PonderInc on July 10, 2009, 02:36:13 PM
Does anyone at the City have a candela meter...or whatever you would use to measure NITs radiating from a digital billboard? It would be pretty funny if we have these specific light output maximums in the ordinance, but no one to measure them.
Oh, wait, that wouldn't be funny. It would be sad.
I can't help but think you might need to prepare to be saddened.