Signwriters Defend Roadside Advertising

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28539, 19 March 1958, Page 12

Signwriters Defend Roadside Advertising

While agreeing that some control should be exercised over the standard' of advertising, the Canterbury Signwriters’ Guild is concerned at the attitude of the City Council and two county councils “in seeking to legislate roadside advertising out of existence.”

The City Council recently laid down a policy for reduction of advertising hoardings. The Paparua and Waimairi County Councils have given notice that further licences will not be issued, and that as existing licences expire they will not be renewed. After a meeting on Monday evening, the guild issued a statement yesterday that the attitude of the councils was not only a direct blow to their own bus! • nesses, but also to progressive companies whose existence depends on advertising. “All business is founded on advertising in some form or other,” the statement says. As taxpayers, the signwriters claim that it is an imposition for the councils to suggest that the Government should close down one of its revenue-earning activities —Railways poster panel advertising. The guild proposes to make submissions to the council in favour of retaining roadside advertising, but “considers, particularly in view of the unfortunate Parapei Rock incident, that it is necessary to institute certain regulations and standards for this type of advertising.”

One common complaint against advertising panels is that they are traffic hazards, but the guild, backed by investigation, considers that they do not contribute to traffic accidents.

“Research has provided considerable evidence to indicate that outdoor advertising and other highway objects serve as a stimulus to the driver, and tend to increase road safety by keeping him alert,” the guild says. “We would suggest that an insurance company will not be found on record as having paid for death, injury or any claims where outdoor advertising has been cited as the cause.

“The roads are lined with safety’ signs. It would be ironical if one of these caused an accident because a driver was distracted by glancing off the road to read ‘sharp bend’ or ‘railway crossing.’ ’’

The guild agrees that there are certain locations and areas which, from a purely aesthetic point of view, should be respected. But roads, it says, were not built primarily for scenic drives. Those on which they wished to advertise were arteries of commerce. Scenery

“The argument that outdoor advertising mars the scenery might be advanced against factory buildings. railway lines and other structures, telephone lines and other essential utilitarian objects. ’

It had been claimed that advertisers could use alternative means, the statement says. They could

and do. But even the political parties clamoured to obtain a majority of poster panels before the last election, so important did they consider the form of advertising. Well-meaning groups had influenced legislation against outdoor advertising. on aesthetic giounds, the statement says. Not everyone liked newspaper, commercial radio or picture theatre advertising, but they were accepted as part of the modern commercial life, of which outdoor advertising was also a part.

“In our country, there must be an essential public need for the exercise of legislative power to justify its use,” the statement says. “What public need is there that roadside advertising must be eliminated? There is none.”