| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Campaign to remove Rosslyn Park advertising screens | |
| Posted by: | Adam Gray | |
| Date/Time: | 04/12/15 21:00:00 |
| John, I'm assuming that there are a range of "environmental" officers (there were in H&F) and that the one they invited to express a view was a specialist in that aspect of the environment. I don't think a planning officer is informed enough to disregard an expert's opinion even though it happens all the time (and it's not the only example: with any controlled parking zone that's introduced the police are invited to comment on safety. Without fail they recommend that parking bays stop a lot further from the junction of the road than the council ever decides to. The police - who you may or may not regard as experts in road safety - take a view that there need to be larger amounts of unhindered visual space before reaching a junction. Council transport planners disregard that advice because that would remove too many parking spaces and reduce income). But I guess anything is harmless until it causes harm. There's no evidence these particular signs are dangerous until there's an RTA, and that RTA is specifically linked to the signs. Of course we hope that never happens. Nonetheless, as others have discussed advertisements are designed to be eye-catching. Back-lit illuminated advertisements are designed to be more eye-catching than billboard adverts. Adverts that change and are, perhaps, animated are more eye-catching than static backlit adverts. We really aren't all that far, technological capacity-wise from the sort of "Minority Report" personalised advertising that can work out who you are from your number plate or smartphone and you get a targeted ad. My point being not to scaremonger but to make the case that the industry, entirely understandably, is continually pushing the limits of distraction to maximise the return for their clients (and therefore themselves). How bright an image is, how distracting it is, how interested the person it's aimed at is are all factors in road safety - and we all have different tolerance. I wouldn't necessarily assume that regulation keeps up with these factors given the rapidity with which technology is advancing. That said, I think the visual impact and the environment we want for Roehampton is a far bigger problem than the safety issue - at least, as I say above, until it becomes unsafe. |