It’s good to learn the Wichita City Council wants a new ordinance that would dial down the brightness on those distracting strobelike LED business signs, according The Eagle’s new Hall Monitor blog.
Most of the signs already have dimming controls, John Lay of George Lay Signs told the council last week.
So let’s turn them down a notch. Either that or give drivers welding goggles.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Tully on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
23 Comments
Lets find the dimmer switch and put some dang restrictions on those cars with the really bright headlights too.
The signs can be bright but does this really require a law? They are not dangerous nor will the blind anybody and, as far as I am concerned, they look better than ugly billboards. And like I said before, if bright signs were a danger to drivers both Times Square and Las Vegas Blvd would be a sea of wrecks.
I wonder how many carbon credits the LED signs use up. Might take up several thousand trees for them to compensate for their increased use o power. Perhaps they should call Al Gore in as a consultant.
Yes Kev, I think they are a danger. Some of us have glare problems when driving at night.
Pmom I sure agree with you about those blue looking headlights. I hate to admit it but I have reached that point where lights bother me more at night and those are double tough. I don’t notice the signs as much but having driven down the strip in Vegas can say they are a big distraction.
Can you actually DRIVE down the strip in Vegas?
There should be a law on car headlights,
Oh yeah…”there outta be a law” strikes again. Do we really need a law for something that is a minor, temporary annoyance? There has been absolutely no correclation between accidents and these signs. There has been no evidentiary proof of any type of safety hazard.
But…some people find them annoying, so there ought to be a law? Since when is our government in the business of regulating every annoyance of life? Without a proven link between these signs and a reduction of safety, I seriously doubt we need yet another law.
Yes, pmom, I have driven the Vegas strip many, many times. It is pretty slow (just about gridlock) on Friday and Saturday nights, but it is driveable.
Anyone who has driven in France will be alarmingly taken off their guard with all those amber headlights. It is totally disconcerting when you drive in a sea of amber headlamps.
The signs shouldn’t be allowed to strobe like emergency vehicle flashing lights. They want to get your attention, and that’s a good way to do it. Drivers will learn to ignore the bright, flashing signs just like we ignore the just of the roadway visual clutter. In ignoring those signs those drivers will also be trained to ignore emergency vehicles flashing lights, and also the occasional intersection light.
People not being aware of emergency vehicles is already enough of a problem, lets not let them make it worse.
I agree with Dorght. I live a few blocks from Harry & Hillside, and there’s a pawn shop on that corner with a very bright sign. When it flashes red, especially at night, I have an immediate impulse to stand on my brakes. It’s very, very distracting going through that intersection, which is already notorious for the number of traffic accidents there.
Looks like the majority of us are in agreement that bright headlights and flashing signs are bad for driving safely, and should have laws against them.
Gee, you’d think common sense would take care of that.
Pmom I drove down the strip once. It took way to long to go the distance. The city buses run like 24 hours a day and are inexpensive so just catch one of those and leave your car parked.
We Blog, there is big difference from single glaring lights and diffused multi-lights that light up an area, it is just like headlights in the day time.There are states and federal laws that specify that lights are not to overcome traffic control devises.We already have all the laws in place that regulate light intensity levels, what we do not have is better enforcements of those laws.
I think it’s hard wiseman, when the auto makers are the ones breaking those rules. The headlights coming out now are brighter than the bright beams on an older car…and we CAN get ticketted for that.
——
I’ve never been to Vegas, but if it’s anything like trying to drive down the strip in Branson, I’d rather take some sort of public transportation.
I’d be more than happy to make a deal with the automakers….you can have your bright headlights, yes they’re good for seeing. However they can ONLY be installed on the high beam- where it shouldn’t bother other drivers.
Well there is an ordinance, but without any measurable critera it just fills up white space.City Code Section 24.04.200
(e) Interfering with Traffic. No sign of any kind shall be erected or maintained in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic or to obstruct the line of sight of any traffic signal, or traffic device as may be determined by the traffic commission.
As far as the “carbon credit” comment on LED lighting, well, the sour news is that even an array of LED lights that big uses scantly more power than a 100W lightbulb. This is the predominant reason (besides durability) that LEDs have been used in place of incandescent bulbs in turn signals on vehicles for several years now… less current is required for the same amount of light output. The signs are energy efficient, which means that cranking the output in light isn’t a bank breaker like a gigantic neon display or an incandescent array ala the Wichita Royale/now-defunct-SC-Telcom building.
Postal-
Barco is a world leader in LED displays. Their 10′x7′ display has a maximum current draw of 11,200 watts, or about 95 amps @ 117 volts. Hardly thrifty. The consumption increases with area, obviously, so bigger displays will draw more current. Also, this can change depending on the native current requirements of the LEDs themselves. “Dimming” LEDs happens by changing the amount of time it is on (pulse width modulation). Also, LED displays generate a significant amount of heat. Look at the air conditioning behind the scoreboard in Lawrence DuMont stadium. Figure in the current draw from that.. I bet it more than doubles.
Better than an incandesent light matrix, but think of it this way: until a few years ago, the average home had 100 amp service.
LTB (Lions, Tigers, & Bears)
Can we just get rid of them altogether? Aside from distracting, they’re tacky and just all-around unsightly. Reminds me of Branson, MO. You know, the epicenter of subtlety and good taste.
I don’t have a problem with them… In fact, i enjoy the one on the Intrust bill board (east bound Kellogg & CBT) because of the time and temp. I also like Mid-American Credit Untions for the same reason…
I do however think they need to be regulated as to brightness, placement and size for safety and annoyance reasons. Outside of Kellogg, i don’t think they need to exceed the height of the building and they need to be dimmed at night.
As for the question of energy conservation, it is a yes and no answer. If the person was displaying the same message on a new LED board as on the old incandescent board, it would be less energy used, but since 99% of the time, you add more graphics, movement, more overall light usage, the savings become null.
My spouse is an airline pilot and reports that the LED advertising sign at Rock & Central can be seen when flying over Liberal, KS. I would say that given that, it is probably too bright!