Opinion: Amber alerts and Taco Bell ads? That’s an accident waiting to happen

Desperation does spur creative thinking. Like this: One state lawmaker wants to turn electronic Caltrans freeway signs into advertising billboards in between Amber Alerts and road condition reports.

The proposal, outlined in Sen. Bob Huff’s (R-San Dimas) SB 1397, would raise an estimated $200 million a year. That sounds like a windfall until you realize that the feds specifically prohibit advertising on freeway signs. Without a waiver, the state could lose 10% of its federal transportation funding, or about $350 million. Don’t worry: Huff’s bill would not force Caltrans to move forward without that waiver.

To his credit, Huff has been scrambling to come up with money to fix the state’s roads without reaching into the pocket of drivers. But he might have gone too far with this bill. While I appreciate the concern for my personal financial health, it’s my physical health I’m concerned about here. There are already way too many distractions for drivers on California’s freeways. I shudder to think even one more thing competing for my attention until my car knows how to drive itself and I can text without fear of slamming into another car.

A study sponsored the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the state of Virginia in 2006 found that 80% of accidents were caused by drivers who turned their attention away from the road for just a few seconds. (The italics are mine for dramatic effect.)

Then there’s the thorny content issue. Though the messages on the state’s 832 freeway signs when there’s no kidnapping crisis can be vaguely patronizing (“Serious Drought Help Save Water” Really? I hadn’t heard), at least they are not offensive. What if someone wants to buy an ad to say something disgusting about aborted fetuses or how Candidate X beats her kids? Imagine the traffic backup as people slow down to get a good look.

Oh yeah, it could happen. Although ads shilling alcohol, tobacco, guns and porn wouldn’t be allowed, politically inclined ads are fair game. That would put the state government in the precarious position of either allowing objectionable — and possibly traffic-stopping — content on the freeway signs or curbing free speech. Sacramento airport officials found themselves in this very quagmire a couple years ago after an uproar over ads with political messages led to the ban on political ads, which led to the stickier question of what constitutes political speech.

Does it really make sense to even start down this road for a measly $200 million year? Legislators haven’t thought so in the past, thwarting a few similar freeway sign ideas by lawmakers including former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

I have to agree. In fact, I’ll go further. I would I would pay not to see ads on freeway signs. (Hmmm. Perhaps that’s the revenue stream Huff ought to pursue.)

mariel.garza@latimes.com

Follow me @marielgarzaLAT