This sign is in view of a difficult corner on the New England Highway (if that's still its name) at Wallangarra, just over the border in Queensland.

I would think that if its message is true then it shouldn't be in view of a road.

No comments?

I thought that this might have elicted some response on the ethics of distracting drivers.

I find all signs a distraction, even those with the allowed speed limits.
Its puzzling how the authorities think motorists can glance away from the traffic to read roadside messages while flashing by but are somehow incapable of talking on a mobile phone while looking straight ahead.
To me this sign has "designed by a committee" all over it.

You’re assuming that it’s visual distraction which is the problem.

It ain’t necessarily so. As we know, your eyes can be fixed straight ahead, but something directly in your line of vision can fail to “register” if you are preoccupied. And, by the same token, your eyes can be fixed straight ahead but a movement in the very periphery of your vision – a child moving to dart out from behind a parked car to your side, for instance – can register if your are alert and your attention is focussed on the task at hand (driving your car).

The problem with a mobile phone, I think, is not that it distracts your eyes – it need not, as you point out - but that it distracts your mind. Operating two different and relatively complex machines simultaneously is difficult for most people; most of us can’t even stroke our stomach and pat our heads simultaneously. Add to that the fact that a phone conversation demands your cognitive attention; you have to focus on what is said, and offer at least minimally intelligent responses, while simultaneously focussing on the wholly unrelated question of what you see in front of you. The speed limit sign, by contrast, is a small and simple part of the visual environment in which you are driving. All things considered, then, participating a phone call is a much greater distraction from driving than noticing the “60 km/h” sign as you pass it.

What about the sign in Samuel’s post? Well, it’s part of the overall visual environment in which you are driving, and therefore doesn’t call your attention away from that environment. But I still find this particular poster very distracting. It may be just a trick of the particular angle from which the picture is taken, but the horizon in the poster seems to line up with the actual horizon behind it, and the trees in the poster likewise seem to line up with the actual trees. It would make me do a double-take; am I actually looking at a printed poster, or am I looking at a large transparency, with the word “focus!” and one or two other things superimposed upon it? And a double-take, of course, is distracting.

Admittedly, that effect is a function of the precise angle from which the poster is seen. Perhaps, if seen from a moving car, it wouldn’t have this effect; I don’t know.

Interesting.
That poster is good and the camera angle emphasises the billboard's reality over the image of the 'real' road. It would not be so to drive past and read it.

I know that we are very much subject to controls over things that might distract drivers. Laser shows are not allowed for instance - imagine a side of a building turning into a billboard beside a freeway, with distracting moving image and text. Planning permission is refused for these, though it is brillliant technology.

The cellphone is very distracting - needs one to one and a half hands PLUS visual distraction to read menus or texts, plus it engages the mind either technically or socially.

I was referring to chatting on the phone, not texting; anyone who does that while driving is dicing with death indeed.

A voice conversation is obviously less distracting than texting. It’s still, though, distracting; much more so than registering the roadside signs.

It occurs to me to wonder, though, whether this varies as between men and women. Women are supposed to be better at multitasking than men, so possibly women are better able to drive a car competently and pay attention to a conversation conducted with someone not in the car than men are.

And the ethical question; assuming research shows that this is the case, is it then ethically permissible (even ethically required?) to have one law for men in this regard, and another for women?

I have always thought that billboards beside roads were designed to attract attention and thus distract drivers.

The only signs along the roadside ought to be traffic signs and directional signs ,eg., street names.

The posted billboard I thought was utterly foolish as its message and itself are distracting.
Whoever thought it up is an idiot and whoever authorized its installation is a culpable one.

Its easy to miss speed signs, eyes are constantly looking ahead, while the outer periphery of vision watches for moving kids, dogs, or vehicles from the sides. It makes more sense to have the speed limits painted on the ground

Refereeing fighting children, while on the move is the biggest test of all. I ended up with a thrown blanky wrapped around my head on one occasion.

The way the sign has been put is distracting. What an irony i must say. The sign aks us not to get distracted but the way it has been put, someone is bound to get distracted for sure. This is ridiculous. I suppose it has been done knowingly.