E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A study of electronic billboards and traffic safety commissionedtThe Federal Highway Administration was supposed to have been completed in 2009, but it remains cloaked in mystery.
Billboard companies are moving aggressively to plant digital signs along U.S. highways and city streets. But debate persists on whether the eye-grabbing displays, which typically change messages every 6 to 8 seconds, pose a risk to traffic safety.
Combatants in the billboard wars -- including local and state officials under industry pressure to permit more of the lucrative signs -- are eager for a study by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). They have hoped that the much-anticipated study, launched in 2007, would help clarify some key safety questions.
Yet the politically sensitive research, which was supposed to have been wrapped up in 2009, remains cloaked in mystery. All the FHWA has said, time after time, is that the study is under review.
It turns out that officials may be afraid to make an embarrassing admission.
According to records obtained by FairWarning under the Freedom of Information Act, expert reviewers have told the FHWA that the study appears to have been botched. The key findings vary so wildly from previous research that, as one reviewer put it, they “are not plausible.”
The agency has refused to answer questions. “We have no one available to be interviewed,” said spokesman Doug Hecox, adding that “internal discussions about the draft of the study are ongoing.” He would not say if FHWA plans to toss the research or try to salvage it.
The hundreds of pages of agency emails and other records reviewed by FairWarning, however, speak loudly about the political and financial stakes, as well as industry efforts to influence public opinion.
The unreleased draft, which drew withering critiques from two experts, gave the billboard industry what it wanted, the documents show. Those results indicated that drivers’ glances at billboards were exceedingly brief, suggesting that the displays aren’t a threat to traffic safety.
Yet the billboard industry, led by the Outdoor Advertising Association of America, was deeply worried. The trade group campaigned to remove a study consultant that the industry accused of having an anti-billboard bias and brought out its own studies to frame public debate while the FHWA was still studying the issue.
Digital signs proliferate
Today, of more than 400,000 billboards in the U.S., estimates of digital displays range from slightly more than 2,000 to as many as 3,200. The industry has been adding hundreds of the more-profitable signs each year.
The FHWA study followed a controversial memo by the agency in September 2007 that appeared to green light the digital expansion. The memo stated that electronic displays were not prohibited under longstanding federal-state agreements that ban “intermittent’’ or ‘’flashing’’ signs.
Anti-billboard groups, including Scenic America, denounced the memo as farcical, saying billboards that alternate content every few seconds are the exact definition of “intermittent’’ signs. Responding to attacks, the FHWA said that it was only clarifying existing policy.
Stung by backlash from the memo, the FHWA launched its study. It relied on sophisticated instruments to monitor how long drivers on fixed routes in Reading, Pa., and Richmond, Va., glanced at digital billboards.
“Lots of interest from all sides,” said an email from senior agency official, referring to the research. “There is huge money involved here, so the interests are getting pretty strident.”
A consulting firm, Science Applications International Corp., was hired to run the study. It brought on Jerry Wachtel, a Berkeley-based traffic safety expert, as an adviser. Science Applications declined comment.
The industry at the time was smarting from a report by Wachtel for Maryland transportation officials. They had asked him to review two industry-sponsored studies that the industry said confirmed the safety of digital billboards. Wachtel’s report said both studies were biased and misleading.
Scenic America
A Clear Channel digital billboard advertises itself through electrical wires in Sarasota, Fla.
In a seemingly orchestrated campaign, several industry groups and members of Congress fired off letters attacking Wachtel and seeking his removal from the FHWA study. In its letter to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, the outdoor advertising association blasted what it called Wachtel’s “high-profile activism.”
Five House members from Pennsylvania — Democrats Jason Altmire, Christopher Carney and Tim Holden, and Republicans Charles W. Dent and Todd Russell Platts — signed a letter to FHWA Administrator Victor Mendez complaining of biased remarks by Wachtel at a hearing on billboards in their state. His involvement, they wrote, “may undermine the credibility of ongoing federal research.”
Billboard industry's political donations
All five lawmakers have received campaign support from billboard executives or political action committees since 2006, according to research by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics. The donations totaled at least $26,484.
Altmire spokesman Richard Carbo said in an email that the congressmen “were concerned that the reports from the Federal Highway Administration were not unbiased. That was the only purpose of the letter.”
In fact, Wachtel’s role was limited and his involvement basically had ended by the time of the protests. However, FHWA officials wanted to avoid any appearance of caving in. “I think we have to be very careful in dealing with this issue,” one official said in an email. “We do not want industry dictating whom we may or may not employ on our projects.”
Responding to the outdoor advertising association, FHWA Associate Administrator Gloria Shepherd wrote: “We are well aware of the sensitive nature of this research. … I can assure you that we will be monitoring’’ the work “to be sure it is accomplished in an objective manner.”
Wachtel, who has worked for billboard companies in the past, told FairWarning that “in their eyes, I have been both the world’s smartest guy and the world’s worst individual. I’m the smartest guy when I tell them what they want to hear.”
In response to questions from FairWarning, the association said in an email that “OAAA and the outdoor industry support fair research. In fact, we’ve researched traffic safety for years. …The results have not indicated a correlation between digital billboards and traffic accidents.”
Records show that FHWA officials rebuffed a Freedom of Information request from an industry lawyer to disclose the research locations, saying they would be kept secret “until the tests are completed to protect the integrity of the results.”
But the industry found out, anyway. It launched its own studies in Reading and Richmond and blared the results. “Digital Billboards Not Linked to Accidents,” a press release said.
Records show the FHWA study was submitted in September 2010, and circulated for internal review in the fall. “The final report is scheduled to be released to the public in December 2010,” an agency memo said.
However, the review continued into 2011, when the two outside experts criticized it. Identified only as “REVIEWER 1” and “REVIEWER 2,” they concluded that the data appeared to be wrong.
Distracted driving research has sought to find the amount of time when drivers looking away from the road raises the risk of a crash. In the scientific literature, glance times associated with a higher crash risk have been variously estimated at 2 seconds, 1.6 seconds or three-quarters of a second.
Almost impossible
In the FHWA study, recorded glances were so brief that none came close to 2 seconds or even 1.6 seconds. Only about 1 percent were above three-quarters of a second.
In fact, the average was slightly below one-tenth of a second -- a number both expert reviewers considered almost impossible.
“The reported glances to billboards here are on the order of 10-times shorter than values reported elsewhere,” one reviewer wrote. “The pattern of results certainly raises questions over the quality and legitimacy of the underlying data.’’
The other said, “The data reported as average glance durations are not plausible.”
Two other experts contacted by FairWarning confirmed that the data was highly suspect.
Alison Smiley, president of Human Factors North, Inc., in Toronto, said the glance times were “extremely short’’ and substantially at odds with her own studies.
Paul A. Green, a research professor at the University of Michigan Transportation Institute, said glances so brief would mean the drivers “never really looked’’ at the billboards.
“It’s a flaw in the data,” Green said. “You wonder, if they made this mistake did they make other mistakes?”
FairWarning is a nonprofit, online investigative news organization focused on public health and safety issues.
Leave a Comment:
don't watch your phone or we will ticket you watch the road or don't watch the road watch the sign on the side of the road ? i know let's see how many people get kill near the sign that will take a few years to find out .
I don't look at the signs at all. I drive daily on I-40 into Memphis and the only signs i look at are the traffic signs too see if any people were stupid enough to look at the other signs and caused a wreak.
The corporations and their profits are what's important.
I think they should be abolished. A BLIGHT on the highways and a severe distraction. Another government failure? You bet, more $$$$ under the tables or other perks for the clowns who call themselves our representatives.... what a joke.....
RwEvans...
if the "wreck" you speak about happens to a "distracted driver" right in front of you
& there is no time for you to stop
you get to tell your insurance adjuster
how you never look at highways signs
as your insurance rates skyrocket
So.... biased remarks will undermine the credibility of this research, but the $26,484 these house members received as campaign contributions won't? Am I the only one who sees irony here?
Get rid of these horribly distracting things !!
.
We get do see capitalism at work and, like sausage-making, it is not a pretty thing to watch. Too many cases of using "free market forces" to encourage or force people to do usage things. Regulatory agencies have known from the get-go that cell phones and texting (even hands free) is more dangerous than alcohol, but it was very purposefully allowed to grow unchallenged until now it is "too big to regulate." So 9,000 people a year (very conservative numbers) die every year while using their cell phone or texting while driving.
But with cell phones we have a choice. I can choose not to use a cell phone in my car. But that does not help me all that much, reducing the risk of a cell phone-related accident by only about 15%. The other 85% I cannot choose because it is the other drivers' domain. And with the flashing billboards, I get no choice at all. They place me at risk without my agreement. And now you're earing the old refrain that "it is too late to regulate them now because there are so many already in place."
The cell phone companies and the billboard companies really don't care if they kill people or not. They are only interested in profits. "Our products don't kill people. People kill people." Sound familiar?
These corporations wanted "corporate personhood." So let's give it to them. If a person kills another driver because they were diverted by texting while driving, manslaughter or negligent homicide charges should not only be brought against the texter, but also against the principals of the company that made and the company that sold the cell phone. Since the electronic billboards are beinbg placed in very "high visibility, high traffic areas" then if a person has an accident in one of those congested areas, then the owner of the billboard should share in the liability.
That is what corporate personhood is all about. Not just the ability to contribute unlimited anonymous campaign money. Not just the ability to lie about your products as "protected free speech." But corporations should be held liable when they have knowingly and purposefully disregarded public safety and that disregard causes loss of life, injury, or property damage.
SO someone at the Federal Highway Administration didn't get "lobbied" to the amount they wanted...Yet.
Would be very interesting to know how many digital billboard corporations are located in Pennsylvania...
Might explain why their Congressmen can be bought off so easily.
I live near one of these eyesores and the graphics on this particular sign literally flash, so that at night it gives the appearance of emergency (fire, police, ambulance) lights. It is horribly distracting, as I've found myself at least twice, looking around for a non-existent cop car and pulling off onto the shoulder.
Get rid of these blasted signs!!!
Obviously that 0.1 second 'glance' is a lie! If that was all they got, it simply wouldn't be worth the money to advertise on them, and the industry wouldn't be fighting so desperately to get them approved.
I HATE these billboards! Simply because I am one of the people who WILL stare at it for 6 seconds to see what it changes to! I know I shouldn't but it's such a huge and BRIGHT distraction I can't help it! I have literally almost went into another lane looking up at them.
PLEASE get rid of these things! Like we need another distraction while driving!
We have a lot of these in California and I wish they would go away!
Has anyone "hacked" into one yet? One they start showing porn then they will take them down! Its just a matter of time!!
I think it all boils down to "SELF"............Are you going to look or aren't you?.....These signs are no more of a distraction than the good looking woman walking down the street........Are you going to look? I look at them only if I'm at a red light. After I look I'm almost always disapointed at whats advertised on them. We should stop trying to complain about the small things............The question remains....ARE "YOU" GOING TO LOOK?..................Remember, no one is "FORCING" you to look at these signs!
Personally, I despise digital signs of the neon kind that are on the 405FWY in LA and in Vegas. They are blinding at night especially and distracting and a traffic hazard. In Vegas, it behooves you to were sunglasses driving at night; those billboards are so blinding. They are so blinding that I make sure that I'm extra focused on the road so as not to get hit from any side from anyone distracted by those digital neon signs and in consequence I pay zero attention to the add or the message they convey. On top it all, unless they are solar energized and eventhough, they are a waste of energy. Doing a study to determine their safety is a waste of time when there are more remedial things to be concerned about to move our economy ahead and when Cies favor Congressmen by sweetening their loot with more $$$, this study deserves to die for the purpose of National HWYs at least. Enough said. I'm wasting my time and everyone else's too.
What's really awesome is when they change from a fairly dim, dark background to blinding white as you're driving toward them at night!
I drive the 405 pretty regularly and have never had any problems with the signs you are talking about. I guess you are just a bad driver who spend too much time sightseeing along the road instead of concentrating on driving the car the way you should be. The big problem I have driving the freeways in CA is that many of the road signs are poorly lit or not lit at all, making them virtually unreadable at night. This has nothing to do with the billboards as the signs that are hardest to read are the ones where there is no other lighting but car headlights around. This brings up another problem. The new generation of car headlights are much brighter than previous versions. In fact, I find the new high intensity halogen and LED headlights to be far more blinding than any electronic billboard lighting.
As for the issue in the article about the times people send looking at the signs, the problem is likely in using the metric of average. If you include those who do not look at the billboards at all, which constitutes a large percentage of drivers, the average glance time could very well be 0.1 seconds. This number would not reflect ho long those ho do look at the signs have their eyes off the road, which is the real issue here. It is not the numbers themselves that are bad, it is the metric that was being looked at that is flawed. Of course this still results in the same thing, a bad study. In any case, I seriously doubt that these new electronic billboards present any more of a hazard than the old style ones. In fact, if the billboards are clearer to read it may actually reduce the time a driver is looking at them since they will not be straining and concentrating to read a poorly lit, old style billboard.
@JS in SD
I guess you are just a bad driver who spend too much time sightseeing along the road instead of concentrating on the road signs the way you should be.
Did you even read the article? Where does it say that they excluded anyone?
Agree! These signs are a glaring example of what's wrong with this country. Why the heck is money being wasted to power billboards??? We need to become more energy efficient, cut waste, and rely on domestic energy sources & instead power is being wasted on this crap? And that's in addition to the fact that anybody with a pair of eyes can tell they are distracting--we need a study to confirm it? Total waste.
@Romney - Like your namesake, you need reading comprehension lessons. I did not say they excluded anyone from the study, I was just pointing out that by including those who don't look at all, the average time could in fact be very low, contrary to what those criticizing the study implied. These so called experts were comparing this average number for all drivers to the length of time those who do look spend looking at the sign as a way of saying the numbers must be wrong. As for the issue of the poor lighting of the road signs, your comment, like you, makes absolutely no sense.
Most in congress won't care how many get killed as long as they get their free campaign ads in return for allowing them.
Clear Channel is Satan. Nothing personal, Clear Channel. Unless of course you actually believe you're a person and not the money-grubbing, greedy corporation you really are.
What ever happened to common sense? It never ceases to amaze me that the parties most invested in something like this are even considered fit for conducting such "studies". Nobody's buying their findings - all you have to do is drive down a highway at night past one of these signs and you immediately know they're distracting.
RIGHT ON onewonan..... Of course you are talking about common sense, something the goverment as usual is lacking.....
What is the number?
I am referring to the number of people that will be distracted and either get killed or injure and or get someone else killed before they do anything??
Ban them!
It never ceases to amaze me how many people, when they see a corporation strong-arming a regulatory agency to get its way, start carping about the agency, not the corporation.
Don't you understand that, flawed as they may have become due to BEING strong-armed, those agencies are the ONLY THING standing between you and unbridled corporate greed?
We see more and more prosecutions for 'driving while distracted' in my city. Typically the drivers are blamed for glancing down at their seat, telephone, etc. while at the wheel. Now I'm waiting for billboard companies to be prosecuted for causing accidents that would never have happened without their blinking, flashing signs.
next to texting, digital billboards are the most dangerous things on the roads...
all those flashy, flashing signs are designed to garner the driver's attention...they are a mighty powerful magnet to get your eyes off the roads and onto the digital message...
i say BAN THEM.
I would say cars are by far the most dangerous things on the roads. Then trucks...
Cars don't kill people, drivers kill people.
I say ban all female joggers, cause they definitely take my eyes off the road when I pass by them. Digital signs cause traffic congestion, that was my own simple study and it didn't cost a dime!
Only the hot joggers.
Billboards are designed to attract attention. From drivers. How is that a good idea?
do you prefer joggles or jiggles ?
With 2,000 to 3,200 signs in place, did anyone record the number of accidents that occurred in the proximity of those bill boards? That's data currently and immediately available to NHWA to sort through.
Seems that would validate or debunk the studies pretty quick. Ohh, silly me. I forgot. Government work does not attract the best and brightest people.
There needs to be a limit on just how bright these signs can be. When driving all night, these things will "light" blind you. Same thing for cops who decide that every unit on the scene need to have the LED lights flashing and scaring my retna.
Doesn't anyone remember why you have a dimmer knob for the dashboard instruments ? Its there because bright light can alter your vision over the hood. This has been a feature in every car over the last 30 years.
Lord save us from these Sociopathic CEO's. Corporations are not people so they can't go to hell, but there'll be a special place for the humans that run them.
How can they be safe? What driver is not distracted from the road as s/he is driving, and the billboard changes? They should be outlawed. In fact, all advertising billboards should be outlawed as in Maine, Vermont, Hawaii and Alaska. Bravo to those states for putting aesthetics and safety above money!
I do not think it prudent for the Industry to have this report released.
Only .1 seconds glance per board? NOT effective advertising dollars! So what does that say about the 'glance time' for static advertising boards?
Even a dangerous 2 seconds is not enough time to absorb the meaning, let alone the message.
Dirty laundry, Billboard Barons?
im more worried about the dope next to me texting than the billboards,move gov waste of money (OUR MONEY) for useless studies
From a legal standpoint, the issue might be framed as to "whether or not digital billboards are more or less distracting than regular billboards?" Or perhaps, the primary main, relevant issue is "whether or not any billboard is distracting, distracting to the point of significantly increasing human imposed traffic accidents on a freeway?" There are so many factors that go into answering either of these questions, that a scientific study that would be acceptable to most of the stakeholders might be impossible. The differences between individual billboards, digital or not, changeable or not are so varied that it might be impossible to study, much less regulate. For some, vying for the side of public safety, one could argue, just institute a complete ban. On the otherhand, one might argue that to point to bill boards as a primary cause while there are people texting, people eating, people reading their GPS machines, people talking to another person in the car, looking back at their baby, reaching down after something fell to the floor, driving impaired makes the whole notion of banning billboards, regulating them ridiculous. There are freedom of expression arguments, commercial right deregulating arguments, and even regulating for the sake of aesthetics on the national roadway arguments. Possibly it will come down to political philosophyand risk assessment analysis or level of confidence and error statistical tolerance of the individual or politician or scientists conducting a study and the strictness of the adherence to scientific protocol demands.
Standard billboards are a kind of subliminal messaging; one passes by them daily and, after a week or two, you know what they say or at least have the gist of the message. In Houston, I live a mile or so from a heavily traveled 7 lane street; T-Mobile opened up a new store and the management put a flashing garish pink/ opalescent blue sign up for advertisements. The colors alternated at less than 3 second intervals, then they would run a line of flashing script before returning to the another flashing message. The sign was only 4' x 6', but you could see it (not read it) for 500 yards. It was almost mesmerizing from that distance, when you weren't distracted by the message. Very annoying - public pressure got them to shut it down.
Remember those multi-vehicle accidents up in Pennsylvania (I think) that were caused by porn being shown at a drive in, the screen visible from the highway? Flashing neon signs will be nearly as bad as that, IMHO. Just think about driving at night, seeing those tall, lit signs advertising the price of gasoline and diesel to the drivers - take that sign and make the letters and numbers flash vigorously; use three colors, pink, bright blue and leaf green - the signs could be made to advertise not only fuel prices, but "hot COFFEE", FRESH doughnuts, X RATED videos etc. ad nauseum. Distracting? Almost makes my head hurt thinking about it - and that is only a small sign - a billboard size sign would be ten times that size, and just as active and much more distracting.
To be honest I could careless what they advertise, electrical or standard. I look at the road when I drive BUT I do agree, female joggers pose more of a danger.
More laws!!! That's what we need!
Jimcolorado-2047646,
We already have regulations governing billboards along roadsides. These regulations have been enacted at the local, state, and federal levels because (contrary to your wholly silly implied assertion) people in a polity have the right and the responsibility to govern that polity, and they do so through regulations. Some of these regulations rise to the status of laws. People only piss and moan and use superfluous exclamation points when they find the regulations of the polity inconvenient to their ends.
To point out the obvious, the issue discussed in this article centers on the application of existing laws, not the creation of new laws. However did this obvious fact escape your notice? Perhaps you were distracted by a digital billboard when the matter was broached.
Lune
I have one of those 12ft high Billboards seperating me from a charming neighbor-some moron
approved, for a non existant 'privacy issue', traffic loves looking into that place -saw one fall
and waiting to see who will accept liability fo damages to my place,when this one falls.
VIVA LA..........FRIENDS IN OFFICE..........
If digital signs weren't more distracting to drivers the billboard companies wouldn't be spending the money to put them up.
Indeed. The very premise is to be distracting. That's what the billboard companies are selling: distraction. When studies are cooked by the very industry being studied, and cooked by lobbyists, more than a little ass-covering is going on.
We have the best government money can buy, and that's not very good at all.
Lets look at how many lives these billboards have saved. When an Amber Alert go out it's these companies that are the first to post the alert on their boards throughout the country.
mark-3486331,
You say, "Let's look at how many lives these billboards have saved," but then you don't give us nary a look at a single life. So tell me (it's an honest question; I really do wonder), how many lives have these billboards saved?
Lune
Since the point of this discussion is how distracting billboards are, posting Amber alerts on these billboards would be the worst billboard distraction. The reason is that an Amber alert is a pertinent message whereas any other message on a billboard is just an advertisement.
As a night time truck driver I can tell you these are very distracting, visually. But I don't believe that's the whole safety issue. It's also about how blinding they are, being way too bright, and how much they break your concentration (on your driving). When you drive as much as I do (2500 miles a week) certain annoyances become pet peeves over time, and I find these too-bright billboards as bad as the ultra-bright construction lights that literally make it impossible to remain oriented while trying to get past them. Why no one seems to have the common sense any more to recognize and prevent these hazards I just don't know. I guess I just feel like it's another indicator of the dumbing down of America. I won't say I'm surprised. Hey, it took years for folks to finally realize that drinking and driving was a serious problem. And yet, though it's now well established, every bar still has a parking lot. And though it's now known what a hazard to driving text messaging is, every cell phone still provides the capability. Brilliant!
My big complaint about these signs is when part of the display breaks and that portion of the sign flashes repeatedly. If I were epileptic it might be a real hazard; it's that fast. And they are so bright, they do hurt my eyes.
I can't imagine living near one of these things and having it flash into your window day and night. These signs are a blight.
thanks Larry....your post was excellent & I'd say you qualify as an expert in assessing these signs...would be simple for government to ASK truck drivers for input...but no one thinks about this most sensible action...they just think of the most expensive company to gather info....using focus groups...made up of people who drive only a fraction of the hours per week that you drive...definitely dumb dumb dumb to have real live people who know things and fail to seek their input just because they are ordinary citizens
I'd follow your tailights and stay safe!
You are right: #15 - Tab and #20 - Larry, there are many many distractions which drivers face - not just billboards (Don't get me wrong, I don't like them. I think they are ugly). But there is ONE thing that will solve distracted driving, period. People shouldn't drive. That's right, I'm waiting for the soon-to-be-discovered technology that allows us to get into the vehicle and give a voice command to "go home," or to the office, church, or Uncle John's house... and then off we go. It shouldn't be that much longer until computers are driving our "TP"s (transportation pods). Then we can sleep, read, eat, drink, talk, watch t.v., sight-see or play games, while driving.
Seriously, people shouldn't drive.
I think the digital billboards are esthetically more attractive. Maybe if the law restricted that advertisers could only change the advertisement only once per hour, or every 6 hours, or once per day, it would be less distracting. Also, make a law about the overall brightness. There is always room for compromise. Everyone realizes that the media only writes stories with the most polarizing viewpoints. Finally, I agree there should be more female joggers.
Having no billboards at all is the only really aesthetically attractive option. If you want to look at advertisements, buy a magazine or stay home and watch TV.
nvm
As long as they are lining the pockets of our politicians, our safety will be an afterthought. In MD they are distracting but many of them advertise events and attractions in the area and the fact that they distract drivers is not even given a thought.
if they really think that there is only 2 to 3 thousand of these with digitals on them, they're just as ignorant as the study itself, working in the industry I know one company thats made that many of them itself, and that don't include the thousand of other companies building these things, your study is pathetic and way off, but considering its gov. work your lack of knowledge don't shock me....
It's extremely difficult for me to review the messages on digital billboards. I am too busy focusing on my text messages while I'm driving. If an advertiser wants to get a message to me while I'm driving down the road, they should just text me. I'll get it then. I can even respond to the message while I'm driving. Driving is mostly boring anyway, so I like to have some other things to do.
More taxpayer dollars squandered:
Five years out and no results? Everything the fed.gov does is flawed. Time to end funding of the fed.gov. It has been in business for more than 225 years and still hasn't shown a profit or figured out how to support itself. Cut off their funding and fire the whole lot. They deserve it. History speaks for itself.
QuipKid,
Your argument fails because of your broad and empirically unfounded generalization. Despite a great many localized warts in its endeavors, the US federal government is in fact quite accomplished in the number of its successes. It's the world's largest publisher, and it publishes practically anything about anything. It manages quite well the world's premier museums and art galleries. It has in its keeping the world's most fantastic assemblage of parks, refuges, and natural treasures, all of which are kept remarkably well through fat times and lean. It maintains the world's largest and most essential library.
Are you a citizen of the US? If you are, you can't even begin to imagine what your life would subside into if the US federal government ceased to exist. Recognizing that flawed humans oversee some governmental projects is one thing; those matters ought to be tended to. Entirely dismissing the structural system that the people put into place to arrange their public concerns is quite another matter indeed. You really don't know what you quip, kid, when you claim that "everything" the government does is entirely flawed and ought to be torn down.
Lune