I live in San Francisco. From my window, I can see the new digital CBS billboard that is located in Oakland at the exit of the Bay Bridge- over 12 miles away. Last week when I drove over the bridge at night, the BRIGHT red ad that kept flashing actually hurt my eyes, and I actually found it dangerous-like the flash that could affect my driving. GET RID OF THEM.

Sent by Steffanie | 3:47 PM ET | 05-30-2007

Oh, my god. It is SO OBNOXIOUS. It's like seeing banner advertisements on web sites - ONLY ITS ON THE HIGHWAY ON THE WAY TO WORK. GROSS! I can't take my eyes off of it. Yet it is so annoying! It's trying to moralize and beautify. What? Nature isn't good enough??

Sent by Susan Ebert | 3:48 PM ET | 05-30-2007

I am disturbed by your caller's comments in trying to claim that it is a company's right to freedom of speech to put signs of any kind on the side of the highway. It is NOT a matter of freedom of speech for a company to spam the highways with distracting billboards. As your guest has said, no company has the right to erect a billboard, just as I do not have a right to my own radio program. The degree to which the members of this nation misunderstand and misinterpret their first amendment rights absolutely boggles the mind!

Sent by BLR | 3:52 PM ET | 05-30-2007

Canada has had national laws for a long time regulating the color, intensity and frequency of highway signs

Sent by Paul Laseau | 3:55 PM ET | 05-30-2007

I wonder what the environmental impact is to flood our environment with obtrusive messages shinning as bright as possible. What's the Carbon Footprint? Our country talks about conserving energy, however business is all too willing to flood our environment with energy sucking Polluting Signs.

Sent by Michael | 3:58 PM ET | 05-30-2007

What happened to being a responsible driver. A sun set takes more than 2 seconds and can distract a driver if they are not focused on the road. Leave the billboards up and get rid of idiot drivers

Sent by Leo | 4:02 PM ET | 05-30-2007

I find my self distracted while driving when the there is a beautiful sunset or fantastic storm is rolling over the Oklahoma plains. We can tell ourselves that we cannot control theses acts of god, but we should really ask if we have the right to. Then ask ourselves if we have the right to control the acts of man. There will always be distractions on the road, figuratively and literally. It is the driver's responsibility to focus on the road, no matter what flashing sign comes across his path.

Sent by John - Oklahoma City | 4:03 PM ET | 05-30-2007

My radio went out because of a storm, but I would like to rebuke the man from the sign industry. As it has been said, signs are not free speech, but if you still stand by that fact, it should be remembered that the right of America are relative, that you only keep your rights when they do not infringe on the rights of others. Life is a right. These digital signs distract drivers from the road; inattention causes accidents; accidents take lives. Defenders will say, "Ignore the signs!" but when they flash or change in your peripheral vision, it is a reflex to look.

Digital billboards should be banned until studies have been done to determine how safe (or, as I am confident they would show, dangerous) they are.

Sent by Jessica Messer. Greater Kansas City. | 4:06 PM ET | 05-30-2007

I can tell you this: Travelling east on the lower deck of the S.F. Bay Bridge, the sudden appearance of the digital billboard just on the south side of the span actually strikes FEAR into my heart (err, I mean eyes.) The billboard quite literally strobes the freeway with the brightness of a spotlight (or rather 1000 tiny spotlights) and is aimed directly at drivers' eyes. It so bright that, right before you emerge out of the tunnel-like lower deck, its ads actually cast sharp building-sized shadows AT NIGHT, like the chassis of the upper deck onto the lower deck, for example.

Exiting out of the lower deck into Oakland at night is now is like getting hit with a drive-by disco. If anyone at CalTrans or the CA State Legisture is reading this, I beg you, please: MAKE IT STOP!

Sent by David Keenan | 4:20 PM ET | 05-30-2007

A few comments:

Those communities across the country with existing lighting ordinances _should_ be able to benefit from their existing regulations, as these billboards are lighting sources. Just like light packs on buildings and bright/unshielded street and parking lot lighting, electronic billboards can be regulated by these communities if they produce unnecessary light pollution that is measured to be over that community's legislated limit.

I'd also like to correct one of the speakers who stated that little to no research has been done regarding these new forms of signage. Studies have been done regarding placement and brightness of outdoor lighting near freeways, lighting of highway construction sites and their impact on drivers, general light pollution on communities and migrating birds, etc.

People need to ignore any arguments advertisers and the sign manufacturers may give regarding first amendment rights and force the manufacturers to address the underlying technology, as these signs are just lighting installations--they can be manufactured to not pollute either by lowering their candle output, installing shielding to direct unwanted light, and a variety of other means, including designing advertisements that are not crass or an eyesore.

I also enjoyed hearing another amateur astronomer comment about the effects of light pollution upon the visibility and viewing condition within urban areas. About ten years ago, my father, also an amateur astronomer, decided to do something about the light pollution. He managed to get the first ordinance of its kind for the greater Cleveland area passed and this past April his complaint against Cleveland Electric Illuminating was upheld by the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. In both examples, he has proven that an individual really can make a difference within their community if they are willing to sit down and formulate not just a "plan of attack" but also if they are willing to educate the general public why some ideas in lighting are just plain dumb.

Sent by lc boros (stega) | 8:55 PM ET | 05-30-2007

I have seen one of these signs on a really difficult area on interstate 80 in PA. The particular sign is by an exit/entrance off 80 and there is major congestion there many times of the day. It is very distracting to many people and since the area is dangerous to begin with...I feel that it may be a really bad thing to have there! The local community is attempting to get it taken away and they actually have some possible cause since the owner did not get any permission to erect the billboard.

Sent by Trudi | 9:18 AM ET | 05-31-2007

I live in Oakland and am appalled at the new digital billboard at the toll plaza. I'm equally appalled that such a visual curse on our beautiful landscape could be installed without public sanction or comment..particularly since it is, undeniably, a traffic hazard. We first drove by it shortly after its installation and literally had to sheild our eyes from the flash and brightness. Saddest of all, however, is its impact on the beauty of the Bay Area since it can be seen blasting commercials into the dark of night and, yes even, the light of day for miles around. My personal vow is not to purchase anything from any group that advertizes on it.

Sent by Leslie Laurien | 7:32 PM ET | 06-06-2007