To overcome the argument that billboards are a distraction to drivers, the outdoor advertising industry often points to a study it says definitively shows the signs create no safety risks whatsoever. This study, conducted by Dr. Suzanne Lee of the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, often pops up in outdoor advertising litigation, or may be given to lawmakers in hopes of persuading them of the supposed safety of highway signs. This study is not only inherently flawed and biased; its uselessness was noted by a federal district court judge in New York. In Nichols Media Group v. The Towns of Babylon and Islip, the court held that the Lee Study is so infected by industry bias as to lack credibility and reliability. It based its opinion on several factors:

 "The study was funded by the Foundation for Outdoor Advertising Research and Education, a close affiliate of the Outdoor Advertising Association of America."

"Trial testimony revealed that representatives of the OAAA were intimately involved in the design and conduct of the Lee Study."

"The Lee Study has been neither widely disseminated nor subject to peer review. Nor have the conclusions of the Lee Study been replicated in any other study"

Don't let industry lobbyists use this discredited study as "proof" that billboards are safe. The only thing it proves is how much money the billboard industry is willing to spend making bogus arguments.

Scenic San Antonio's Point of View

The Billboard industry used this same document with our San Antonio City Council on December 6, 2007, to gain passage for changes in our City Ordinance that previously banned digital billboards throughout the City of San Antonio.

They also used other common industry tactics, too:

1.) Agreeing to take down old unprofitable billboards, although not in the same numbers as other cities.

2.) Offering to give up the advertising space for amber alerts (which TXDot, radio and television have ably doefor years without one single digital billobard and it will be included with all the other advertising in that rotation).

3.) Convincing our City leaders to allow them in protected Scenic Corridors even though the current City Ordinance bans all new signs ,even replacing the existing billboards.

4.) They also want you to believe that by replacing the old vinyl faces with the heavier more costly digital faces that they are not new signs as they are just modifications allowed by law. The law allows some maintenance on existing signs. The problem is that under the City's 50% cost rule determining whether it is a modification or a new sign - everyone wants you to believe that the cost of a digital face is less than the cost of a vinyl face. Even the industry owns websites show that digial faces are in most cases over 200% higher in cost than a vinyl face.