in traffic safety and community aesthetics would be achieved less effectively without the ordinance’s prohibition on EMCs. We give some respect to “the accumulated, common-sense judgments of local lawmakers and of the many reviewing courts that billboards are real and substantial hazards to traffic safety.” Metromedia, 453 U.S. at 509, 101 S.Ct. 2882 (plurality opinion). It is given that a billboard can constitute a traffic hazard. It follows that EMCs, which provide more visual stimuli than traditional signs, logically will be more distracting and more hazardous. See Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2006 WL 2711851, at *4 (D.S.C. Sept.20, 2006), vacated on other grounds by Chapin Furniture Outlet, Inc. v. Town of Chapin, 2007 WL 3193854 (4th Cir. Oct.30, 2007) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, plaintiffs own witness stated that
holding in the context of emc regulations that the towns judgment that flashing or scrolling signs constitute a traffic hazard  is not unreasonable holding that the bia rule is unreasonable in this context holding that a traffic stop is valid under the fourth amendment if the stop is based on an observed traffic violation or if the police officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that a traffic or equipment violation has occurred or is occurring holding that parked police vehicle could not constitute other traffic holding that vehicular search incident to arrest for traffic offense is unreasonable under state constitution