Vienna convention signs are usually avoiding conveying information via text. Other than stop sign, for historic reasons I guess. Text might be present, but it’s usually supplementary to the sign itself, and doesn’t do anything by its own.
Our “do not enter” looks like this
But in all seriousness, road signs need to be consistent and convey very quickly what the message is to a road user. If someone has to decipher that a red ring means “do not”, except for speed limits, then consistency is lost.
The problem I have with signs here in North America, is that they are largely just ignored 😫
Nobody has to decipher anything. Everyone is taught from childhood about the most important signs, everyone grasps basic rules and exceptions, and when you learn how to drive, you learn and memorize more obscure sings, and then you just know them, no deciphering needed. It’s the same both in America and in the rest of the world.
You seem to think that American signs are intuitive and not require learning, but that’s not true, it’s just you’re familiar with them, you know the rules and so it’s easy for you.
I’ll respectfully disagree, because there are plenty of studies that show a wide gap in understanding of road signs, with some being considerably more intuitive to understand than others.
As an example, have a look at the data below:
As you can see, the “no powered vehicle” sign (red line through it) was understood by nearly everyone, with no confusion.
Compare that to the “no cycling”, “no pedestrian” or “no motor vehicle” signs below:
You have mass confusion, with very few people actually knowing what the sign means before they are trained. To me, that’s a design flaw.
Other studies show a similar pattern.
This one for example, asked people from different countries to identify the meaning of various traffic signs.
I will point out that the ones which scored nearly perfectly identified, are the ones with a line through them; Signs with just coloured circles were very often misidentified, or understood as having the opposite meaning.
We can go back and forth on this (I don’t want to), and while I do agree that education can reduce the chance of a sign being misunderstood, that misses the point completely.
Those are pictograms, they aren’t “logical”, it’s a language, it can’t follow a logic. It’s like me saying that “road sign” is an illogical name, we all know it’s Verkehrsschild.
your defaultism is showing. In fact most of the world uses a white sign with red border to mean a prohibition.
and in fact children need to be taught what traffic signs mean all over the world, they don’t magically know it
That’s crazy.
Like, this sign means maximum speed limit, not “don’t go 20”…
To me, it’s illogical.
Like, how on earth would the right be better than the left in explaining that bikes are not allowed?
The use of a red border needs to be consistent, if it were to mean prohibition. Yet, it’s not 🧐
The thick line on the left covers up part of the bike, making the sign overall harder to read.
Also, the red border on the 20 does make sense, as it’s a speed prohibition on going over 20.
Are your “do not enter” signs just the word ENTER, but with a red circle border? 😂 I’m kidding.
Vienna convention signs are usually avoiding conveying information via text. Other than stop sign, for historic reasons I guess. Text might be present, but it’s usually supplementary to the sign itself, and doesn’t do anything by its own.
Our “do not enter” looks like this
See a line through the sign! /s
But in all seriousness, road signs need to be consistent and convey very quickly what the message is to a road user. If someone has to decipher that a red ring means “do not”, except for speed limits, then consistency is lost.
The problem I have with signs here in North America, is that they are largely just ignored 😫
Nobody has to decipher anything. Everyone is taught from childhood about the most important signs, everyone grasps basic rules and exceptions, and when you learn how to drive, you learn and memorize more obscure sings, and then you just know them, no deciphering needed. It’s the same both in America and in the rest of the world.
You seem to think that American signs are intuitive and not require learning, but that’s not true, it’s just you’re familiar with them, you know the rules and so it’s easy for you.
I’ll respectfully disagree, because there are plenty of studies that show a wide gap in understanding of road signs, with some being considerably more intuitive to understand than others.
As an example, have a look at the data below:
As you can see, the “no powered vehicle” sign (red line through it) was understood by nearly everyone, with no confusion.
Compare that to the “no cycling”, “no pedestrian” or “no motor vehicle” signs below:
You have mass confusion, with very few people actually knowing what the sign means before they are trained. To me, that’s a design flaw.
Other studies show a similar pattern.
This one for example, asked people from different countries to identify the meaning of various traffic signs.
I will point out that the ones which scored nearly perfectly identified, are the ones with a line through them; Signs with just coloured circles were very often misidentified, or understood as having the opposite meaning.
We can go back and forth on this (I don’t want to), and while I do agree that education can reduce the chance of a sign being misunderstood, that misses the point completely.
Well, I’m in the USA. I’m just here to defend UK road signage
Are yours just the word
enter?it does in fact mean “don’t go 20” because then you’re likely to end up going 21, which is not allowed.
In North America, that most certainly means you’ll be going 45 to keep up with everyone else. 😂
Those are pictograms, they aren’t “logical”, it’s a language, it can’t follow a logic. It’s like me saying that “road sign” is an illogical name, we all know it’s Verkehrsschild.