Can't stop THIS signal!

[sylvar]

There's a company whose purpose it is to send trucks around town with rotating advertising panels and an FM transmitter, creating more pollution for the purpose of making it impossible to escape commercial messages.

I ended up near one of these trucks on my morning commute, and decided to preempt their programming.  Their FM transmitter was puny (couldn't get a clear signal from about 20 feet away).  I happened to have an iPod FM transmitter available, so I fired it up, tuned it to broadcast on 99.9 FM, and played

KKK Bitch.  When that was over, I was still behind the truck, so I played Ben Folds' cover of Bitches Ain't Shit.

I really regret that I was going to the office today.  I wish I could have followed it for a while longer.  I wish I had songs lined up in a playlist that were even more offensive.  I wish I had a brand-new car, so far I got this hatchback...

Of course, I'd just have been creating more pollution that way.  Maybe what I need is a weatherproof version of the LED throwie, only with an FM transmitter and a chip with a brief offensive message on it...

Come to think of it, a cross-FM-spectrum, low-power transmitter with a repeating message would be a great variant on Road Rage Cards.  It could say

"Asshole!  Asshole!  Asshole!"

to anything within 10 meters, thus serving as both a warning and (if the target is listening to the radio) an annoyance.

A Bluetooth poon will be left as an exercise for the reader.

Comments

creating more pollution for the purpose of making it impossible to escape commercial messages

[reluctance.livejournal.com]

Many cities, not expecting such an asinine business model, are pleased to pass bylaws forbidding it when it is brought to their attention. My recommendation is to get a lazy petition together and write to some local representatives.

(Not that your vigilante approach doesn't sound like fun also 8)

Re: creating more pollution for the purpose of making it impossible to escape commercial messages

[sylvar.livejournal.com]

I've thought about that, but I haven't been able to think of language that would effectively restrict it.

What differentiates these trucks from others that are making deliveries but also have ads on them? (Assume the advertisers would arrange to make deliveries in order to stay in business.)

On a related note, what about companies that wrap a cheap truck in an advertisement, turning it into a billboard, and then park near the street to circumvent billboard laws?

There's one near my home that has arrows pointing forward (which only make sense if they're intending to park the truck right there to act as a billboard), and has oddly dressed mannequins on top of the truck.

It's clearly an ad that's meant to escape the laws restricting ads, but what's to be done about them?

Re: creating more pollution for the purpose of making it impossible to escape commercial messages

[tealfroglette.livejournal.com]

i dislike legistlating everythign to death and laws on laws and laws, but i really have a problem with wasting fossil fuel or any other kind with trucks that drive in traffic in teh way, taking up space showing ads. I've called the people paying for ads once or twice and told them i'm disgusted with that type of advertizing so i will AVOID their company if they keep payign for ads on the in traffic trucks.

Dunno if it helps but if enough of us do that, maybe that would help.

Re: creating more pollution for the purpose of making it impossible to escape commercial messages

[segnbora.livejournal.com]

Is that the one for the liquor store on Bearss, in the complex with Winn-Dixie? The mannequins are usually dressed in clothing that is meant to represent the nearest holiday; they're not just randomly oddly dressed.

And mannequins without the truck are also used as ads by an apartment complex on the same street; at some times of the day (afternoon rush hour, at least) there's a family of two adult and two child-size ones surrounding the complex's sign (but it looks really odd as the 'father' mannequin is now missing both arms, which was not originally the case).