AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Traffic Control => Topic started by: mcmc on July 26, 2012, 09:56:46 PM

Title: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: mcmc on July 26, 2012, 09:56:46 PM
It's no secret that Clearview is unpopular among roadgeeks (to put it mildly). Clearview's advocates--academics and DOT types--however, cite its technical advantages over FHWA. There are plenty of engineers on here. Do any of you favor Clearview--and why?

I'm eager to see someone play the devil's advocate.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2012, 11:07:07 PM
Quote from: mcmc on July 26, 2012, 09:56:46 PM
It's no secret that Clearview is unpopular among roadgeeks (to put it mildly). Clearview's advocates--academics and DOT types--however, cite its technical advantages over FHWA. There are plenty of engineers on here. Do any of you favor Clearview--and why?

I'm eager to see someone play the devil's advocate.

I work as an engineer, though my formal education is in IT/CS - I am definitely not a P.E.

But the research work that was done on Clearview was pretty compelling (from what I have read, its development was influenced by human factors studies and engineering, which I did study in college).

I don't consider Clearview to be especially less-attractive than the "traditional" FHWA fonts, or, for that matter, the official highway sign font in Sweden (Tratex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratex)) or one used in the U.K. (Transport (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_%28typeface%29)) or the one in Finland (a commercial "clone" version is out there called Helsinki (http://www.typographyserved.com/gallery/Helsinki/2368026), though that is not what Finnish highway engineers call it).

Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Alps on July 26, 2012, 11:35:18 PM
I'm an engineer, and I believe that using Series E instead of E(M) would have made a big difference in the comparison tests. I'm not sold on Clearview until it's fairly compared with an FHWA variant with a similar stroke width. I think the shapes of the FHWA letters are not just more aesthetic, but easier to distinguish. Georgia's mixed-case D beats the snot out of anything Clearview can attempt.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
I am a licensed PE, and I am not in favor of Clearview, at least not until further testing is done. As somewhat eluded to by Steve, I don't think enough testing was done with various configurations of the existing FHWA fonts. I still believe that changing to Series E or D, while retaining current letter height specs would have had the same (or better) effect than switching to Clearview. Taking off my engineer hat and just as Joe Taxpayer, IMHO, Clearview was a misappropriated use of monies, especially given the large holes left by not thorough enough testing (read: it was rushed to market).

On the other hand, my boss is a big advocate of Clearview and seems to love that flavor of Kool Aid. We've had some interesting discussions on the issue in the past. He understands my standpoint and the states that have banished Clearview, (Wisconsin, cough, cough), but remains a firm believer in it.

In any case, I especially do not like the high costs of obtaining the fonts.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
A few observations (from a technically trained non-engineer):

*  I believe one of the first TTI studies dealing with Clearview compared it with Transport Medium and FHWA Series E, with Series E falling in the middle of the pack.

*  Georgia DOT has now abandoned mixed-case Series D on freeway guide signs, in favor of the Series E Modified that had been used previously.

*  It is surprisingly common for the engineers I have seen commenting on this issue here and on MTR to take a stand that is at variance with the engineering policy decisions of their state DOT employers regarding Clearview.

I don't think there is a legibility bonanza to be had from tinkering with the stroke width or even the uppercase/lowercase ratio of the FHWA alphabet series to counter Clearview's advantages against microprismatic backgrounds.  The difference in stroke width between Clearview 5-W and FHWA Series E Modified is actually pretty small:  Clearview gains in legibility not because it uses a thinner stroke, but because the stroke width varies (it is a humanist typeface), and because the counters are bigger, which is possible because the ratio of lowercase loop height to capital letter height is larger than for FHWA Series E Modified.

The experience of the last ten years has shown that FHWA Series E Modified can hold its own against Clearview because the latter offers an increase in reading distance of only about 10% when sign surface area is held constant, which is less than the size step increment at typical freeway speeds (20" UC versus 16" UC, which is an increase of 25%).  As a result, Clearview has not broken through and adoption among the state DOTs has more or less stalled.  This is not Griliches and the hybrid corn; this is just another purported better mousetrap which couldn't live up to the hype.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 08:27:00 AM
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2012, 11:35:18 PM
I'm an engineer, and I believe that using Series E instead of E(M) would have made a big difference in the comparison tests. I'm not sold on Clearview until it's fairly compared with an FHWA variant with a similar stroke width. I think the shapes of the FHWA letters are not just more aesthetic, but easier to distinguish. Georgia's mixed-case D beats the snot out of anything Clearview can attempt.

Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
I am a licensed PE, and I am not in favor of Clearview, at least not until further testing is done. As somewhat eluded to by Steve, I don't think enough testing was done with various configurations of the existing FHWA fonts. I still believe that changing to Series E or D, while retaining current letter height specs would have had the same (or better) effect than switching to Clearview. Taking off my engineer hat and just as Joe Taxpayer, IMHO, Clearview was a misappropriated use of monies, especially given the large holes left by not thorough enough testing (read: it was rushed to market).

On the other hand, my boss is a big advocate of Clearview and seems to love that flavor of Kool Aid. We've had some interesting discussions on the issue in the past. He understands my standpoint and the states that have banished Clearview, (Wisconsin, cough, cough), but remains a firm believer in it.

In any case, I especially do not like the high costs of obtaining the fonts.
Agree with both of you 100% and I am a P.E. BTW.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2012, 11:20:38 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
I am a licensed PE, and I am not in favor of Clearview, at least not until further testing is done. As somewhat eluded to by Steve, I don't think enough testing was done with various configurations of the existing FHWA fonts. I still believe that changing to Series E or D, while retaining current letter height specs would have had the same (or better) effect than switching to Clearview. Taking off my engineer hat and just as Joe Taxpayer, IMHO, Clearview was a misappropriated use of monies, especially given the large holes left by not thorough enough testing (read: it was rushed to market).

How much testing is enough testing?  I ask that in a rhetorical sense.

From what I have heard at TRB Annual Meeting sessions, Clearview was extensively tested, and found to be better, especially for people with less than 20/20 vision.  And the U.S. population is aging. 

Note that while I like Clearview, I also like some other "highway" fonts (including the various traditional "FHWA Gothic" fonts), as stated above, and am not an "evangelist" for any of them.

I think it's also important to mention that Clearview is not approved by the FHWA for negative-contrast use (dark characters on a light background).

Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
On the other hand, my boss is a big advocate of Clearview and seems to love that flavor of Kool Aid. We've had some interesting discussions on the issue in the past. He understands my standpoint and the states that have banished Clearview, (Wisconsin, cough, cough), but remains a firm believer in it.

Can you share why he likes it?  I ask out of curiosity.

Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
In any case, I especially do not like the high costs of obtaining the fonts.

That is an excellent point.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 02:17:36 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2012, 11:20:38 AM
From what I have heard at TRB Annual Meeting sessions, Clearview was extensively tested, and found to be better, especially for people with less than 20/20 vision.  And the U.S. population is aging.

Not to completely change topics, but how much age-related accommodation should we be considering in our designs? Signs can only grow so large before they become cost prohibitive. At least in for the short-term, changing fonts is not cheap when you factor in the costs of obtaining the fonts and labor to change detail drawings. Depending on the state, that can be a lot of manhours.

Some may see it as being crass, but a "benefit" to maintaining the status-quo is it gives a definitive point to tell drivers they may not have the skills to safely operate a vehicle any longer (or, at the very least, to get their eyes checked). It's a tough call to make, but it needs to be made.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2012, 11:20:38 AM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 12:25:33 AM
On the other hand, my boss is a big advocate of Clearview and seems to love that flavor of Kool Aid. We've had some interesting discussions on the issue in the past. He understands my standpoint and the states that have banished Clearview, (Wisconsin, cough, cough), but remains a firm believer in it.

Can you share why he likes it?  I ask out of curiosity.

Basically, he finds it easier to read, mainly because of the thinner stroke width. He does agree that more could have been tested with variations of the FHWA fonts before creating a completely new font.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2012, 11:20:38 AMI think it's also important to mention that Clearview is not approved by the FHWA for negative-contrast use (dark characters on a light background).
Tell that to both PTC and PennDOT; many of their light background signs have been Clearview for quite a few years.  Of the 2 agencies, the PTC is by far the worst offender in this category.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: 1995hoo on July 27, 2012, 02:48:29 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2012, 11:20:38 AMI think it's also important to mention that Clearview is not approved by the FHWA for negative-contrast use (dark characters on a light background).
Tell that to both PTC and PennDOT; many of their light background signs have been Clearview for quite a few years.  Of the 2 agencies, the PTC is by far the worst offender in this category.

Come to Virginia. Several of the signs shown on the FHWA's Clearview FAQ site as examples of incorrect Clearview implementation are VDOT signs that I pass almost every day. Come to think of it, I think I passed at least three relatively new–posted within the past month–negative-contrast Clearview signs this morning (two black-on-yellow and a black-on-white, all of them in all-caps as well).

I'm not an engineer and so have no comment on the original topic. I do find Clearview easier to read at a distance, though.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Takumi on July 27, 2012, 03:23:40 PM
^ VDOT also uses it in exit tabs a lot, an application which I believe is not approved, as well as gore signs, about which I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 04:15:44 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 02:17:36 PMAt least in for the short-term, changing fonts is not cheap when you factor in the costs of obtaining the fonts and labor to change detail drawings. Depending on the state, that can be a lot of manhours.

The argument that Clearview is more expensive needs further illumination.  Is it really that much more expensive to purchase a complete set of the Clearview fonts than a copy of the FHWA Series fonts?  How does the cost vary by sign design package used, and how are the licensing arrangements structured?

The cost I have heard is about $700 for a workstation license for a full set of Clearview fonts, which is quite small compared not just to the total cost of a sign replacement contract, but also a licensed copy of SignCAD (around $2000, I think).  And if the license is nonexpiring, then it is essentially a one-time expense.  Meanwhile, professional-quality font renditions of the FHWA alphabet series themselves are not free, though the glyphs are in the public domain.

QuoteNot to completely change topics, but how much age-related accommodation should we be considering in our designs? Signs can only grow so large before they become cost prohibitive.  [. . .]  Some may see it as being crass, but a "benefit" to maintaining the status-quo is it gives a definitive point to tell drivers they may not have the skills to safely operate a vehicle any longer (or, at the very least, to get their eyes checked). It's a tough call to make, but it needs to be made.

It is reasonable to pay more to accommodate aging drivers up to the point that the benefits to society arising from such accommodations are outweighed by the costs.  It is a conceptually straightforward cost-benefit calculation, although in practice it is somewhat complicated by the need to use hedonic pricing for some variables, such as any increases in crashes that are a potential downside of older drivers negotiating a highway network that is not completely adapted to their needs.

I would not want to sit before a committee in the state legislature and try to argue that my state DOT employer should stick with an (arguably) technically inferior traffic sign typeface just to give older drivers a clear signal that their skills are no longer adequate for negotiating the highway infrastructure.  It is much safer to argue that the benefits are sufficiently limited that switching costs and quality assurance problems are adequate reasons not to change over to Clearview.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: cu2010 on July 27, 2012, 04:52:29 PM
Quote from: PHLBOS on July 27, 2012, 02:43:07 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 27, 2012, 11:20:38 AMI think it's also important to mention that Clearview is not approved by the FHWA for negative-contrast use (dark characters on a light background).
Tell that to both PTC and PennDOT; many of their light background signs have been Clearview for quite a few years.  Of the 2 agencies, the PTC is by far the worst offender in this category.

NYSTA is a pretty bad offender too...they just love slapping Clearview on everything. And I mean everything.

Add to that the fact that they're terrible at using it properly, leading to butt-ugly signs...ugh.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: 1995hoo on July 27, 2012, 05:02:50 PM
Quote from: Takumi on July 27, 2012, 03:23:40 PM
^ VDOT also uses it in exit tabs a lot, an application which I believe is not approved, as well as gore signs, about which I'm not sure.

It's not approved for gore signs that use numbers because the FHWA's guidance says words in all-caps, and numerals, are supposed to be in the old typefaces. Because a gore sign has "EXIT" in all-caps, and often a number following underneath, it would violate the guidelines (boldface in original):

QuoteQ: Since Clearview is so much more legible than the old highway lettering, and it was based on using upper— and lower-case letters, should I now display all lettering on signs using upper- and lower-case letters as I've seen illustrated in some documents?

A: Mixed-case legends are restricted to place names and destinations; all other messages such as action and distance messages, cardinal directions, and auxiliary designations shall remain composed of all upper-case letters employing the the MUTCD criteria. Legends composed of all upper-case letters did not demonstrate a like improvement over the Standard Alphabets when displayed using Clearview. Accordingly, words composed of all upper-case letters continue to use the Standard Alphabets.

Q: Does this mean all letters, numerals, and characters of Clearview are significantly more legible?

A: Numerals and special characters have not been tested for legibility and concerns have been reported thereon in field applications. Therefore, numerals continue to be displayed on highway signs using the Standard Alphabets.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fresources%2Fclearviewdesignfaqs%2Fimages%2Ffig4.jpg&hash=8d01420c93984d201ff67d2314d02d598732a033)
Figure 4. ACCEPTABLE: Example of appropriate use of Clearview for destination legend (mixed-case) and FHWA Standard Alphabets for other legends (all upper-case and numerals).

Incidentally, regarding "words composed of all upper-case letters," Figure 5a on that page shows one of VDOT's "bad-Clearview" signs on I-395. They're citing it as "unacceptable" because the fraction was done incorrectly, but it happens to include the word "MILE" in all-caps as well.

Source for the above: "Design and Use Policy for Clearview Alphabet" from the MUTCD site (http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/clearviewdesignfaqs/index.htm)
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: DaBigE on July 28, 2012, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 04:15:44 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 27, 2012, 02:17:36 PMAt least in for the short-term, changing fonts is not cheap when you factor in the costs of obtaining the fonts and labor to change detail drawings. Depending on the state, that can be a lot of manhours.

The argument that Clearview is more expensive needs further illumination.  Is it really that much more expensive to purchase a complete set of the Clearview fonts than a copy of the FHWA Series fonts?  How does the cost vary by sign design package used, and how are the licensing arrangements structured?

The cost I have heard is about $700 for a workstation license for a full set of Clearview fonts, which is quite small compared not just to the total cost of a sign replacement contract, but also a licensed copy of SignCAD (around $2000, I think).  And if the license is nonexpiring, then it is essentially a one-time expense.  Meanwhile, professional-quality font renditions of the FHWA alphabet series themselves are not free, though the glyphs are in the public domain.

Except that what you describe is for an agency starting from scratch. New fonts can be plugged into most existing software packages. Retaining current designs/fonts has zero additional cost. For many agencies that design their own signs, they already have the full set of FHWA fonts. Similarly, many existing agencies have, in some cases, hundreds of individual sign plate detail sheets that would require upgrading, in addition to comprehensive sign layouts that require upgrading. As much as FHWA would like to believe, not all agencies copy and paste their standard sign layouts.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 04:15:44 PM
I would not want to sit before a committee in the state legislature and try to argue that my state DOT employer should stick with an (arguably) technically inferior traffic sign typeface just to give older drivers a clear signal that their skills are no longer adequate for negotiating the highway infrastructure.  It is much safer to argue that the benefits are sufficiently limited that switching costs and quality assurance problems are adequate reasons not to change over to Clearview.

Sorry, I should have explained my point a little better. I didn't mean for a sign font being the end-all, be-all criterion for pulling unsafe drivers off the road. I have been a firm believer that states should have mandatory re-testing above a determined age (TBD by medical professionals). Frankly, I am appalled that my home state chose to renew licenses for eight years at a time. Once a person gets into their 60s and 70s, skills can change dramatically in a fraction of that time. "Helps older drivers" is an agrument I've heard time and time again, and not just in the case for Clearview fonts. At some point, we're making the roads more hazardous for other drivers by allowing people to remain on the road that should have turned in their keys years earlier. But that's another topic for another thread.

If the current fonts are so inferior, why wasn't this brought up decades ago? This is one place where I have to tip my hat to the U.K. Sign design is a science and not a popularity contest/political. Their sign design manuals are an interesting read for those who haven't seen them before.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Quillz on July 28, 2012, 05:35:38 AM
I don't really have a problem with Clearview. I don't think it looks that bad. I think for me, it looks awkward because I'm so used to the FHWA series. But I think had the two been reversed, ie the FHWA series was coming in to replace the decades old Clearview, I'd not like the former as much.

There is certainly a lot of research that suggests Clearview is better, at least when it comes to positive contrast signage.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 28, 2012, 12:18:55 PM
Quote from: DaBigE on July 28, 2012, 01:07:19 AMExcept that what you describe is for an agency starting from scratch. New fonts can be plugged into most existing software packages. Retaining current designs/fonts has zero additional cost. For many agencies that design their own signs, they already have the full set of FHWA fonts. Similarly, many existing agencies have, in some cases, hundreds of individual sign plate detail sheets that would require upgrading, in addition to comprehensive sign layouts that require upgrading. As much as FHWA would like to believe, not all agencies copy and paste their standard sign layouts.

But the majority of standard sign plates are for negative-contrast signs, for which Clearview is not permitted and should not be used, so if an agency wanted to convert to Clearview as its primary typeface for guide signage, there would be only a fairly small number of standard sign plates to redo--mostly rest area signs, boundary/feature signs, certain types of tourist signs, and D-series signs:  probably fewer than 50 in all.  I could see Clearview resulting in a fresh need to re-do large numbers of sign designs only if the agency's routine practice was otherwise to "carbon-copy" designable signs through sign replacement cycles (i.e., use a given CAD design for one replacement in one year, and then re-use the exact same CAD design for the next replacement 20 years later).

For reasons of version stability, I think there are very few state DOTs that can do this.  WisDOT might be able to do it with its homegrown signing CAD bolt-on, and MnDOT might have been able to do it if it were still using its old Fortran-based sign design program, but I understand SignCAD has little version stability.  SignCAD-generated sign designs look different according to the version of the signcad.rsc file that is loaded into the MicroStation workspace.

This is aside from the fact that most state DOTs don't carbon-copy existing signs (and indeed deprecate the practice).  For example, I-19 in Arizona has not been upgraded aside from a few interchanges near Tucson since it was finished in the 1970's, but the signing has changed considerably, partly because Arizona DOT decided to drop city information from advance guide signs in the 1998 sign replacement (in the previous cycle, in 1981, Arizona DOT had put both street and city names on the advance guide signs).

QuoteSorry, I should have explained my point a little better. I didn't mean for a sign font being the end-all, be-all criterion for pulling unsafe drivers off the road. I have been a firm believer that states should have mandatory re-testing above a determined age (TBD by medical professionals). Frankly, I am appalled that my home state chose to renew licenses for eight years at a time. Once a person gets into their 60s and 70s, skills can change dramatically in a fraction of that time. "Helps older drivers" is an agrument I've heard time and time again, and not just in the case for Clearview fonts. At some point, we're making the roads more hazardous for other drivers by allowing people to remain on the road that should have turned in their keys years earlier.

My point was really about presentation.  I don't disagree that there is an argument in favor of refraining from sending older drivers false signals that the highway infrastructure has been comprehensively redeveloped to meet their needs.  The problem is that this view needs to be expressed carefully, otherwise it comes across as "Let them eat cake."

There are significant collateral costs to taking the decision to continue driving out of older drivers' hands.  Since they lose mobility immediately, they become customers for a subsidized paratransit system, and they can also be forced to move into assisted living, which causes morbidity to go way up.  The added costs of re-testing and administrative surveillance for older drivers are also a significant burden on driver licensing systems which already struggle to meet basic expectations for customer service.

Society is considerably less out-of-pocket when it allows older drivers to use their greater emotional maturity, experience of life changes, and more precise understanding of their own capabilities to decide how to limit their driving and, if and when the need arises, to surrender their driver's licenses.  The costs are incurred only when such drivers make errors in judging their own capabilities, as is a problem to some extent for all age groups, not just senior citizens.

These factors do not absolutely prevent the state taking a greater role in deciding when older drivers must stop driving, but they do mean that any proposed change has to be carefully considered as to costs and benefits.

QuoteIf the current fonts are so inferior, why wasn't this brought up decades ago? This is one place where I have to tip my hat to the U.K. Sign design is a science and not a popularity contest/political. Their sign design manuals are an interesting read for those who haven't seen them before.

The current FHWA alphabet series are research-led.  Once they were adopted, their legibility characteristics were accepted as a baseline for design purposes, and other design criteria for signs were structured around them.  This, however, did not mean that a better mousetrap could not be invented years or decades down the road (an observation which, by the way, also applies to Clearview).  The legibility performance of the typefaces was never controversial until the traffic research community started looking for ways in the late 1980's to provide for the demographic bulge of older drivers that is coming as the baby boomers age.  The research effort that spawned Clearview originally began with a study (I think by McGee) which suggested that the standard letter size for freeway guide signs would have to be increased from 16" UC to 20" UC to accommodate older drivers at some point in the future.  This was considered unaffordable and technically difficult, so tinkering with the intrinsic legibility of the standard typeface seemed like the most fruitful direction for further research.

In Britain, the legibility characteristics of the Transport typefaces have been subsumed into general design criteria for signs and are uncontroversial because Britain has no great demographic bulge of older drivers to cater for.  There is therefore no Clearview debate in Britain.  Driver licensing arrangements are also different--instead of periodic renewals at fixed intervals as in the US (which arguably can no longer be justified since license renewal is no longer used to administer refresher written tests), the license is valid until age 70 (though photocards need to be renewed every 10 years--a process which is normally handled by mail), at which point refresher written and driving tests become necessary at fairly short intervals.  In urban Britain it is much easier for elderly people to get around without a car and without having to resort to specialized and expensive paratransit services.  With free medical care for everybody, the typical elderly Briton is much more healthy and active than the typical elderly American to begin with.  The typical American scenario--older driver still on the road in his own car because public transit alternatives just aren't viable--is almost unknown outside the thinly populated Scottish Highlands.

I have some familiarity with the development of the current British signing system and, although it is in some respects more well-thought-out than ours, its development has not been altogether free of beauty-contest politics.  Background colors for direction signs were chosen largely on the basis of personal taste, as filtered through the Worboys committee.  Red slashes were eliminated from prohibitory roundels (contrary to the recommendations of the Worboys report) even though research later showed that the red slashes improved comprehension.  Adoption of the Worboys signs themselves entailed a massive conversion from word-message to symbolic signs--again, research showed that sign comprehension went down.  Our three-destination (exceptionally four-destination) limit for D-series signs is based on design criteria fixed by Forbes in a couple of studies in the late 1930's and early 1940's; Britain has a six-destination limit, which is based on a different theory of sign reading (which requires only that drivers be able to pick out the destination they are looking for) and is arguably less conservative than ours.

A major argument against the adoption of Clearview in the US is that it is too easy for inexperienced or naïve sign designers to make mistakes with it.  This problem is far worse in Britain, where sign designers have to observe a multiplicity of very precise rules and keep constantly in mind a far greater array of basic design concepts.  Over time and with the casualization of employment in design offices, this has led to so many quality assurance problems that a major head of investigation in the last traffic signing review was simplification of the design rules so that they can be applied consistently and accurately by relatively unskilled personnel.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Roadsguy on July 28, 2012, 06:15:43 PM
Quote
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmutcd.fhwa.dot.gov%2Fresources%2Fclearviewdesignfaqs%2Fimages%2Ffig4.jpg&hash=8d01420c93984d201ff67d2314d02d598732a033)

If that sign is where I think it is, then I just passed it yesterday (maybe today). :)

Lemme guess, somewhere on I-81 in PA.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: mcmc on July 29, 2012, 03:58:36 AM
If so many engineers are indeed against Clearview, why hasn't there been a backlash among the professionals the various DOTs?

Adoption of Clearview has always been optional--and even then for very limited uses (mixed-case use on guide signs). Its usage, generally, has been adopted far beyond its approved uses (exit signs, tabs, all caps usages, etc.). Why the headlong rush--and virtually no ensuing backlash? Clearview is still only approved for "interim" usage. Is there any chance of stopping Clearview's march?
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2012, 11:36:06 AM
FHWA didn't add Clearview to the 2009 MUTCD. I think that speaks to FHWA, while not outright rejecting it (yet), not being quite sold on it yet. They could very well at some point decide to yank the interim approval, forcing everyone to go back the FHWA Series fonts (unless they spend no federal money on them).
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 11:49:34 AM
Quote from: mcmc on July 29, 2012, 03:58:36 AMIf so many engineers are indeed against Clearview, why hasn't there been a backlash among the professionals the various DOTs?

There has been.  Massachusetts' MUTCD supplement now actively forbids the use of Clearview in the state.  Some other state DOTs (e.g., WisDOT) have carried out localized experiments with Clearview and decided to stick with Series E Modified.  Meanwhile, still others (e.g., Arizona DOT) were enthusiastic initial adopters of Clearview but have come to see that there are problems with aspects of it, such as digits that are hard to read, and have pruned their usage accordingly.

My judgment, speaking as one who has been collecting pattern-accurate sign design sheets from various state DOTs over the years, is that Clearview adoption has already passed its high-water mark.

QuoteAdoption of Clearview has always been optional--and even then for very limited uses (mixed-case use on guide signs). Its usage, generally, has been adopted far beyond its approved uses (exit signs, tabs, all caps usages, etc.). Why the headlong rush--and virtually no ensuing backlash? Clearview is still only approved for "interim" usage. Is there any chance of stopping Clearview's march?

Regarding the last two sentences, see above.  In regard to all-uppercase legend on signs:  FHWA's interim approval for Clearview does not actually forbid the use of Clearview all-caps in positive contrast, or the use of Clearview typefaces other than 5-W and 5-W-R.  It is actually the Clearview FAQ on the MUTCD website, a separate document with no regulatory value which came out much later, which deprecates the use of Clearview typefaces other than 5-W and 5-W-R, the use of Clearview on non-designable signs even in positive contrast (e.g., the Interstate route marker), and the use of Clearview for all-caps legend even in positive contrast.

Negative-contrast Clearview has never been approved by FHWA.  Its usage is an indication of quality assurance problems in traffic design offices.  Remember that in sign design software, Clearview remains equally accessible to the user regardless of whether it is being applied in positive or negative contrast, and a sign design on a plan sheet nearly always appears as black letters or keylines against a white background, regardless of whether the actual sign is positive or negative contrast.

If a careless or poorly trained designer uses Clearview for a negative-contrast sign, and the engineer does not take the time to review the design carefully before he applies his seal (or other mark of approval) to the plan sheet, then the contractor takes on an obligation to fabricate and erect the sign to the erroneous design when the project is put out to bid and awarded.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 11:54:38 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 29, 2012, 11:36:06 AMThey could very well at some point decide to yank the interim approval, forcing everyone to go back the FHWA Series fonts (unless they spend no federal money on them).

They could indeed do that, but Clearview has been rolled out in so many states at this point that I think FHWA is unlikely to mandate its immediate removal--I think the more likely scenario is a phaseout program coordinated with AASHTO.  Clearview could easily be removed in the same gradual fashion as button copy and old "house style" signs in states which had their own custom typefaces.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: vdeane on July 29, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
I don't see them ever forcing states to remove it, but forcing new sings to be FHWA is what they would likely do if the interim approval were removed.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: mcmc on July 29, 2012, 03:35:13 PM
What are the real chances that interim approval will be revoked? And what about the opposite outcome: that Clearview will get permanent approval--perhaps even favored status over the FHWA series?
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Scott5114 on July 29, 2012, 03:41:54 PM
Quote from: mcmc on July 29, 2012, 03:35:13 PM
What are the real chances that interim approval will be revoked? And what about the opposite outcome: that Clearview will get permanent approval--perhaps even favored status over the FHWA series?

I dunno. It depends on how FHWA feels about it.  Judging by that page that FHWA has up about improper use of Clearview, there are only limited circumstances where the font has any advantage at all. FHWA might judge that those limited benefits aren't enough to mandate Clearview. They will have to mandate one or the other at some point; I don't see the two coexisting in the SHS at any point. And considering the mandate hasn't gone to Clearview yet...
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 04:31:48 PM
I don't think it can be taken for granted that one or the other has to go.  The performance characteristics of the two typeface families are similar enough that a mixed system (i.e., the status quo) could continue indefinitely.  The objections to such an outcome relate primarily (though not exclusively) to taste rather than function.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Central Avenue on July 29, 2012, 05:08:51 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 11:49:34 AM
In regard to all-uppercase legend on signs:  FHWA's interim approval for Clearview does not actually forbid the use of Clearview all-caps in positive contrast, or the use of Clearview typefaces other than 5-W and 5-W-R.  It is actually the Clearview FAQ on the MUTCD website, a separate document with no regulatory value which came out much later, which deprecates the use of Clearview typefaces other than 5-W and 5-W-R, the use of Clearview on non-designable signs even in positive contrast (e.g., the Interstate route marker), and the use of Clearview for all-caps legend even in positive contrast.

Thanks for clarifying that. I'd seen people on both sides of this debate treat the Clearview FAQ as if it had regulatory power or represented some hard-and-fast rule, which I didn't think was the case, but I was hesitant to say anything because I didn't know for sure.

That said, I'm still in the minority that prefers every element of a guide sign to be done in the same typeface, though I fully admit that this preference is based solely on aesthetics.

(Hell, I think I'm in the minority in that I find Clearview aesthetically pleasing to begin with--Central Avenue loves her some humanist sans-serifs!)
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: hbelkins on July 29, 2012, 11:46:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
*  It is surprisingly common for the engineers I have seen commenting on this issue here and on MTR to take a stand that is at variance with the engineering policy decisions of their state DOT employers regarding Clearview.

Why is that surprising? I disagree with a whole lot of the policy decisions my employer makes and many of its practices.

In the bureaucracy, it's been my experience that a lot of policy decisions are made by the upper echelon which has a bad habit of not listening to the boots on the ground.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 11:56:23 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2012, 11:46:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 01:03:39 AM*  It is surprisingly common for the engineers I have seen commenting on this issue here and on MTR to take a stand that is at variance with the engineering policy decisions of their state DOT employers regarding Clearview.

Why is that surprising? I disagree with a whole lot of the policy decisions my employer makes and many of its practices.

In the bureaucracy, it's been my experience that a lot of policy decisions are made by the upper echelon which has a bad habit of not listening to the boots on the ground.

It is surprising because there is a presumption that once you have given your advice internally as a professional and it has been accepted as input into an engineering policy decision, you will in general refrain from embarrassing your colleagues or your department by publicly criticizing that decision.  It is comparable to the doctrine of cabinet collective responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility).
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: hbelkins on July 30, 2012, 12:14:06 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 11:56:23 PM
It is surprising because there is a presumption that once you have given your advice internally as a professional and it has been accepted as input into an engineering policy decision, you will in general refrain from embarrassing your colleagues or your department by publicly criticizing that decision.  It is comparable to the doctrine of cabinet collective responsibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabinet_collective_responsibility).

Nice to know that civil-service PEs waive their First Amendment rights when they go to work for a state DOT, and that a British-style doctrine has been accepted as SOP and unwritten policy by American agencies.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Scott5114 on July 30, 2012, 12:49:01 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 29, 2012, 11:46:01 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
*  It is surprisingly common for the engineers I have seen commenting on this issue here and on MTR to take a stand that is at variance with the engineering policy decisions of their state DOT employers regarding Clearview.

Why is that surprising? I disagree with a whole lot of the policy decisions my employer makes and many of its practices.

In the bureaucracy, it's been my experience that a lot of policy decisions are made by the upper echelon which has a bad habit of not listening to the boots on the ground.

It's not just in the bureaucracy. My workplace is the same way. These days it seems like I disagree with all of the policy decisions my employer makes. (So I'm planning on not having an employer for any longer than I can help it.)
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 02:20:43 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on July 30, 2012, 12:14:06 AMNice to know that civil-service PEs waive their First Amendment rights when they go to work for a state DOT, and that a British-style doctrine has been accepted as SOP and unwritten policy by American agencies.

It is really a question of professionalism rather than First Amendment rights.  Freedom of speech means you can say what you wish (within very broad limits), but it does not by itself imply that anything you do say must be considered to lie within the boundaries of good professional conduct.  Nor is there anything particularly British about this; it is a recognized norm in all mature bureaucracies.

I should say that most of the Clearview critics I have known to work within state DOTs have never directly criticized their own agencies' decisions regarding Clearview adoption.  They merely couch their views in language which invites readers to think that they would have chosen differently if the decision had fallen to them.  This is a responsible and (usually) tactful way of being candid about one's own professional opinion without badmouthing one's agency or looking like one is attempting to subvert a settled policy.  It does entail striking a rather fine balance, however, so it is surprising to see the effort made for the benefit of lay observers in a public forum.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: vdeane on July 30, 2012, 09:04:34 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 29, 2012, 04:31:48 PMThe objections to such an outcome relate primarily (though not exclusively) to taste rather than function.
We also have green guide signs instead of blue as a matter of taste rather than function.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on July 30, 2012, 10:23:16 AM
As a highway signing engineer (26+ years), my biggest objection to Clearview is that not enough real-world testing in the field was done with the font before states started adopting it as a standard.  Even the best driving simulators and lab studies cannot reflect real highway conditions.  Hense, the saying among some engineers "Clearview, a solution in search of a problem."

And. while the proponents of Clearview indicate they've received positive public reaction when new Clearview signs are installed, I suspect most of that positive feedback is not because of the "improved" font, but simply because the DOT has replaced worn out signs with bright shiny new ones (which appears to be the case in PA).

My other concern with Clearview is that, due to the "narrower but taller" font as compared to Highway Gothic, the contrast ratio will prematurely degrade - requiring that signs be replaced earlier than at present (say 10 to 12 years instead of the present 18 to 20 years many agencies replace their freeway BGSes.  Again, this is another "real-world" condition that can't be properly simulated in lab trials and, to my knowledge, isn't currently being monitored over time in the field by any DOTs or FHWA.

Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 10:23:16 AMAs a highway signing engineer (26+ years), my biggest objection to Clearview is that not enough real-world testing in the field was done with the font before states started adopting it as a standard.  Even the best driving simulators and lab studies cannot reflect real highway conditions.  Hence, the saying among some engineers "Clearview, a solution in search of a problem."

I don't think it is quite fair to characterize Clearview as a "solution in search of a problem" since the problem definition--"Need to increase letter size on signs at least 20%"--came before the PTI started the initial Clearview research.  I do agree that the research program has had problems, largely because it chases a moving target where Clearview is concerned.  The initial research results were obtained with versions of the fonts which differ significantly from the ones currently in use:  Clearview-Condensed, Clearview-Bold, and "first upgrade to Clearview" (language taken directly from the Clearview Interim Approval memorandum).  The first experimental version of the Clearview typeface used for field installations in Texas (notably an example at the I-635/US 75 interchange while it was being upgraded to the Dallas High Five) was apparently criticized for having too thin a stroke width; the stroke width was later thickened.  It is unclear how this version relates to other versions of Clearview that have been tested.  Early TxDOT Clearview signing projects, which were drawn before the Clearview typefaces became available for SignCAD (and TxDOT purchased licenses for all 26 districts), showed the sign designs using Series E Modified but had "Use Expressway Clearview instead" stamped on each plan sheet; similarly, it is unclear how Expressway Clearview compares to other tested versions of Clearview.

Bottom line:  with the initial testing based on such a multiplicity of draft versions of the typeface, it is almost impossible to tell whether the results obtained carry over to the versions of Clearview that are now commercially available and are in wide use.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on July 30, 2012, 11:55:42 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 10:23:16 AMAs a highway signing engineer (26+ years), my biggest objection to Clearview is that not enough real-world testing in the field was done with the font before states started adopting it as a standard.  Even the best driving simulators and lab studies cannot reflect real highway conditions.  Hence, the saying among some engineers "Clearview, a solution in search of a problem."

I don't think it is quite fair to characterize Clearview as a "solution in search of a problem" since the problem definition--"Need to increase letter size on signs at least 20%"--came before the PTI started the initial Clearview research.  I do agree that the research program has had problems, largely because it chases a moving target where Clearview is concerned.  The initial research results were obtained with versions of the fonts which differ significantly from the ones currently in use:  Clearview-Condensed, Clearview-Bold, and "first upgrade to Clearview" (language taken directly from the Clearview Interim Approval memorandum).  The first experimental version of the Clearview typeface used for field installations in Texas (notably an example at the I-635/US 75 interchange while it was being upgraded to the Dallas High Five) was apparently criticized for having too thin a stroke width; the stroke width was later thickened.  It is unclear how this version relates to other versions of Clearview that have been tested.  Early TxDOT Clearview signing projects, which were drawn before the Clearview typefaces became available for SignCAD (and TxDOT purchased licenses for all 26 districts), showed the sign designs using Series E Modified but had "Use Expressway Clearview instead" stamped on each plan sheet; similarly, it is unclear how Expressway Clearview compares to other tested versions of Clearview.

Bottom line:  with the initial testing based on such a multiplicity of draft versions of the typeface, it is almost impossible to tell whether the results obtained carry over to the versions of Clearview that are now commercially available and are in wide use.

Points taken.  However, unless I'm mistaken, I don't recall there being a huge public outcry to DOTs that "we can no longer read FHWA font freeway signs - we need something better." So, and with respect to PTI and others, the creation of Clearview was creating a solution to a perceived problem that hadn't yet materialized (nor, IMO, was likely to do so).  In other words, a solution in search of a problem.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 12:11:10 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 10:23:16 AMAs a highway signing engineer (26+ years), my biggest objection to Clearview is that not enough real-world testing in the field was done with the font before states started adopting it as a standard.  Even the best driving simulators and lab studies cannot reflect real highway conditions.  Hence, the saying among some engineers "Clearview, a solution in search of a problem."

I don't think it is quite fair to characterize Clearview as a "solution in search of a problem" since the problem definition--"Need to increase letter size on signs at least 20%"--came before the PTI started the initial Clearview research.

I recall seeing discussions of this at one or more sessions at annual meetings of the Transportation Research Board quite a few years ago.  Lots of concern about the driving population getting older.

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
I do agree that the research program has had problems, largely because it chases a moving target where Clearview is concerned.  The initial research results were obtained with versions of the fonts which differ significantly from the ones currently in use:  Clearview-Condensed, Clearview-Bold, and "first upgrade to Clearview" (language taken directly from the Clearview Interim Approval memorandum).  The first experimental version of the Clearview typeface used for field installations in Texas (notably an example at the I-635/US 75 interchange while it was being upgraded to the Dallas High Five) was apparently criticized for having too thin a stroke width; the stroke width was later thickened.  It is unclear how this version relates to other versions of Clearview that have been tested.  Early TxDOT Clearview signing projects, which were drawn before the Clearview typefaces became available for SignCAD (and TxDOT purchased licenses for all 26 districts), showed the sign designs using Series E Modified but had "Use Expressway Clearview instead" stamped on each plan sheet; similarly, it is unclear how Expressway Clearview compares to other tested versions of Clearview.

Were, by chance, other, off-the-shelf sign typefaces considered?  From Europe or elsewhere?

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 11:02:41 AM
Bottom line:  with the initial testing based on such a multiplicity of draft versions of the typeface, it is almost impossible to tell whether the results obtained carry over to the versions of Clearview that are now commercially available and are in wide use.

So the tests that were conducted (and have been cited by advocates of Clearview) were not done with the Clearview fonts that are now being used on highway signs?
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Scott5114 on July 30, 2012, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 12:11:10 PM
Were, by chance, other, off-the-shelf sign typefaces considered?  From Europe or elsewhere?

Quote from: J N Winkler on July 27, 2012, 01:03:39 AM
*  I believe one of the first TTI studies dealing with Clearview compared it with Transport Medium and FHWA Series E, with Series E falling in the middle of the pack.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 11:55:42 AMPoints taken.  However, unless I'm mistaken, I don't recall there being a huge public outcry to DOTs that "we can no longer read FHWA font freeway signs - we need something better." So, and with respect to PTI and others, the creation of Clearview was creating a solution to a perceived problem that hadn't yet materialized (nor, IMO, was likely to do so).  In other words, a solution in search of a problem.

It might be more precise to characterize it as a solution offered in anticipation of a problem.  The baby-boom generation is considered to include people with birthdates ranging from 1946 to 1964.  When Clearview research began in the mid-1990's, the oldest members of this group had barely reached the age of 50.  Now, in 2012, people born in 1946 are turning 66.  In states like Kansas which have differential license validity by age, these people are already on shorter renewal cycles (in Kansas, four years versus six).  If they were in Britain, they would be a few years shy of their licenses expiring (age 70 for ordinary car licenses) and the start of a much shorter renewal cycle with deeper testing at each renewal.

It is prudent to provide for contingencies which can reasonably be foreseen to arise.  That, I feel, was the main motivation for research into Clearview.  It can be argued that a 70-year-old in 2012 is "younger" (i.e., less likely to be affected by age-related disability at that age) than someone who was 70 in 1950, and is also more thoroughly supported by better automotive technologies.  I don't think, however, that such arguments would have been sufficiently strong to marshal a consensus behind the view that research into Clearview was unnecessary.

Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 30, 2012, 12:11:10 PMSo the tests that were conducted (and have been cited by advocates of Clearview) were not done with the Clearview fonts that are now being used on highway signs?

For the preliminary tests, yes, that is true.  For the later tests it is difficult to say.  Hawkins et al.'s last report for TTI on Clearview has photos of the test signs and mockups of the legend in an appendix, and on superficial inspection it looks identical to Clearview 5-W/5-W-R as now used, but I do not know for a fact that it is identical.  Your question has been raised previously by engineers on a number of occasions, and I am not aware that it has been answered squarely, at least in public.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:59:49 PM
What's interesting to me is that the problem really began with the backgrounds of signs being so reflective.  My father, now 84 years old, was with me and several other family on the trip to the Rose Bowl in 2001.  He noticed right away how much easier it was to read old California BGS with button copy on nonreflective background than it was reading more modern signs back home. 

The thickness of stroke widths seems to be much of the issue; the advantages of Clearview seem to be largely in thickness of stroke width, and on many new signs near me, the new lettering is larger so it's not possible to really say if the new signs are easier to read because of the font or the size.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: KEK Inc. on July 31, 2012, 04:42:00 AM
Graphic designers and human design engineers are the ones who study fonts...  Not necessarily a civil engineer.

Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: deathtopumpkins on July 31, 2012, 10:48:08 AM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:59:49 PM
What's interesting to me is that the problem really began with the backgrounds of signs being so reflective.  My father, now 84 years old, was with me and several other family on the trip to the Rose Bowl in 2001.  He noticed right away how much easier it was to read old California BGS with button copy on nonreflective background than it was reading more modern signs back home.

My mother (who is in her mid-40s but has rapidly deteriorating eyesight, particularly sensitive to lighting) always voices a similar complaint to me, but she claims that the issue is more the reflectivity of the new signs than the font on them. Based on what she saw in years of driving around Virginia, the older non-reflective lighted signs were the easiest to read, followed by the pre-Clearview reflective signs. Virginia's newest generation of signage though, which has now spread to most of the state, is far more reflective - a bit too reflective in our opinions. They reflect so much light at night that they're a little too bright to read and during the day they often reflect sunlight - making them completely impossible to even look at. It got to the point that she couldn't drive on interstates except during the middle of the day (particularly around sunset was bad) because she couldn't read the signs. She can see them much better up here in Massachusetts because there are more older signs, but she has the same issues with the new ones.

Regarding Clearview specifically, she thinks that it looks "childish" and unprofessional compared to FHWA fonts, but not significantly more or less legible.

Based on the above I agree with PurdueBill's statement, the clearview's not what's the big problem so much as the extreme reflectivity of the signs.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 31, 2012, 12:52:10 PM
Quote from: PurdueBill on July 30, 2012, 09:59:49 PM

The thickness of stroke widths seems to be much of the issue; the advantages of Clearview seem to be largely in thickness of stroke width, and on many new signs near me, the new lettering is larger so it's not possible to really say if the new signs are easier to read because of the font or the size.

I think a lot of Clearview signs have the letters too large.  I like (solely from an aesthetic perspective) how Texas does their signage, and very much dislike Pennsylvania's approach.  how do those two design styles compare from a technical legibility standpoint?
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on August 01, 2012, 02:01:44 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on July 30, 2012, 03:49:59 PM
Quote from: roadman on July 30, 2012, 11:55:42 AMPoints taken.  However, unless I'm mistaken, I don't recall there being a huge public outcry to DOTs that "we can no longer read FHWA font freeway signs - we need something better." So, and with respect to PTI and others, the creation of Clearview was creating a solution to a perceived problem that hadn't yet materialized (nor, IMO, was likely to do so).  In other words, a solution in search of a problem.


It is prudent to provide for contingencies which can reasonably be foreseen to arise.  That, I feel, was the main motivation for research into Clearview.  It can be argued that a 70-year-old in 2012 is "younger" (i.e., less likely to be affected by age-related disability at that age) than someone who was 70 in 1950, and is also more thoroughly supported by better automotive technologies.  I don't think, however, that such arguments would have been sufficiently strong to marshal a consensus behind the view that research into Clearview was unnecessary.


Points taken.  As I said, I mean no disrespect to those who originally developed Clearview.  I also agree with you that it's generally good practice to base research on possible future problems that can be reasonably expected to occur).  However, my main complaint with the development and introduction of Clearview is the quick jump from experimential trials to an FHWA-accepted standard for "on the road" use.

As I noted in an earlier post, if you replace 30 and 40 year old signs with new panels, it's almost impossible to determine if the positive driver response to those new signs is due to using Clearview font or just because the signs are now bright and shiny.  It also bothers me that nearly no meaningful research was done on the smaller fonts, or on tracking legibility over time once Clearview signs have actually been installed in the field.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: Takumi on August 01, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
^ With regard to your last point, many of the Clearview signs in Virginia have replaced signs that were 20 years old or less, so were still very visible. Those could be used as examples for a case study as to whether Clearview is more visible than its predecessor.

And with regard to the original point, my dad, who's worked in the roads industry as an inspector for 20+ years, said Clearview makes him dizzy. :-D
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on August 01, 2012, 05:32:53 PM
Quote from: Takumi on August 01, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
^ With regard to your last point, many of the Clearview signs in Virginia have replaced signs that were 20 years old or less, so were still very visible. Those could be used as examples for a case study as to whether Clearview is more visible than its predecessor.

But you'd still have the variable of new sheeting vs old, which could easily skew your results (most drivers would probably conclude that sign Y is brighter than sign X, so it must be better - regardless of the font on either sign).  To conduct a proper field study of Clearview in a real highway environment, you would need to replace X number of signs along a given length of highway, with half of the new signs in Clearview and half in Highway Gothic.

To insure a balanced test and get a true public reaction, ideally you would alternate the signs (Clearview, then Highway Gothic, then Clearview, etc.), and also have signs of similar format as well (no Gothic exit signs followed by Clearview diagrammatic signs, etc.).

And, again with respect to the developers of Clearview, this is exactly what FHWA should have insisted on before they started handing out Interim Approvals for the font like free samples of a new product.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on August 01, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 31, 2012, 10:48:08 AM

My mother (who is in her mid-40s but has rapidly deteriorating eyesight, particularly sensitive to lighting) always voices a similar complaint to me, but she claims that the issue is more the reflectivity of the new signs than the font on them. Based on what she saw in years of driving around Virginia, the older non-reflective lighted signs were the easiest to read, followed by the pre-Clearview reflective signs. Virginia's newest generation of signage though, which has now spread to most of the state, is far more reflective - a bit too reflective in our opinions. They reflect so much light at night that they're a little too bright to read and during the day they often reflect sunlight - making them completely impossible to even look at. It got to the point that she couldn't drive on interstates except during the middle of the day (particularly around sunset was bad) because she couldn't read the signs. She can see them much better up here in Massachusetts because there are more older signs, but she has the same issues with the new ones.


Interesting perspective on the issue. MassHighway started using high-intensity prismatic (HIP) sheeting on their LGS panels in 2004.  So far, to my knowledge, they've not gotten any complaints about sunlight "bleeding out" the sign panels or the other issues you've described.

My personal observations have been that the HIP sheeting actually makes the signs more legible at night as compared to Type III.  This is because, unlike with the older sheetings, as you approach a HIP sign at night, the legend actually gets brighter until just before you go under (or pass) the panel.  It's also my understanding that HIP sheeting is supposed to have a longer "in-service" life before the retro-reflectivity totally degrades, as compared to the older high-intensity (Type III and IV) sheetings.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 07:31:21 AM
Quote from: roadman on August 01, 2012, 05:43:22 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on July 31, 2012, 10:48:08 AM

My mother (who is in her mid-40s but has rapidly deteriorating eyesight, particularly sensitive to lighting) always voices a similar complaint to me, but she claims that the issue is more the reflectivity of the new signs than the font on them. Based on what she saw in years of driving around Virginia, the older non-reflective lighted signs were the easiest to read, followed by the pre-Clearview reflective signs. Virginia's newest generation of signage though, which has now spread to most of the state, is far more reflective - a bit too reflective in our opinions. They reflect so much light at night that they're a little too bright to read and during the day they often reflect sunlight - making them completely impossible to even look at. It got to the point that she couldn't drive on interstates except during the middle of the day (particularly around sunset was bad) because she couldn't read the signs. She can see them much better up here in Massachusetts because there are more older signs, but she has the same issues with the new ones.


Interesting perspective on the issue. MassHighway started using high-intensity prismatic (HIP) sheeting on their LGS panels in 2004.  So far, to my knowledge, they've not gotten any complaints about sunlight "bleeding out" the sign panels or the other issues you've described.

My personal observations have been that the HIP sheeting actually makes the signs more legible at night as compared to Type III.  This is because, unlike with the older sheetings, as you approach a HIP sign at night, the legend actually gets brighter until just before you go under (or pass) the panel.  It's also my understanding that HIP sheeting is supposed to have a longer "in-service" life before the retro-reflectivity totally degrades, as compared to the older high-intensity (Type III and IV) sheetings.

The light issues were on Virginia signs. Only the newest of the new Massachusetts signs have the same issue and still aren't nearly as bad. No idea why. I don't really notice it in Mass, but back in Virginia signs were extremely difficult to read at night because when your headlights hit them they just reflected all the light right back to you, preventing you from reading the legend. Like you said, it gets brighter, but the whole sign gets brighter, becoming nothing but light.

I personally don't see why it was such an issue that the signs try to look the same at night that they did during the day. There's no concern about being too reflective or anything like that if only the letters are reflective (i.e. button copy). So long as a sign has a nonreflective background and reflective letters/border/arrows/etc. there is no question of being able to see it.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 02, 2012, 11:00:44 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 01, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
^ With regard to your last point, many of the Clearview signs in Virginia have replaced signs that were 20 years old or less, so were still very visible. Those could be used as examples for a case study as to whether Clearview is more visible than its predecessor.

And with regard to the original point, my dad, who's worked in the roads industry as an inspector for 20+ years, said Clearview makes him dizzy. :-D

I think a further problem in Virginia is that the Clearview implementation is so inconsistent. The signs on I-395 had pretty much all been replaced sometime within about the past 12 years (after 2000) and most of them have all been replaced again in the past couple of years with very poorly-executed Clearview signs. The signs at the Duke Street (VA-236) interchange are particularly bad in terms of letters too large for the sign size and text that feels crammed-in. So one of the problems there is that while at first blush it seems like a good place to examine the legibility of the new sign versus the old, upon further examination it may not be a good place because of problems with the particular new signs that are not necessarily directly attributable solely to the use of Clearview.

One thing I found interesting on I-395 (a road I used to drive to work every day) is that the signs that went up around 2000 or so were generally a noticeably darker green than what Virginia had used in the past, whereas the new ones now are a much brighter green (no doubt for reflective reasons). So that's a further variable. I rather liked the darker green color and I'd have liked to have seen Clearview used on that background to compare it. I'll see if I can find a picture of one of those darker signs and I'll edit this post if I do.


Edited to add: Afraid I don't have a good picture. Problem is the lighting conditions were so different in all the pictures that it makes it hard to tell what's due to the sheet metal and what's due to the lighting itself. The best picture I have is on a blindingly bright Sunday morning when the road was covered with snow back in February 2010 (incidentally, the picture confirms that some of the Clearview signs were in place by then) and the point of the picture was more the snow than anything else.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: cpzilliacus on August 02, 2012, 03:25:04 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2012, 11:00:44 AM
Quote from: Takumi on August 01, 2012, 02:20:39 PM
^ With regard to your last point, many of the Clearview signs in Virginia have replaced signs that were 20 years old or less, so were still very visible. Those could be used as examples for a case study as to whether Clearview is more visible than its predecessor.

And with regard to the original point, my dad, who's worked in the roads industry as an inspector for 20+ years, said Clearview makes him dizzy. :-D

I think a further problem in Virginia is that the Clearview implementation is so inconsistent. The signs on I-395 had pretty much all been replaced sometime within about the past 12 years (after 2000) and most of them have all been replaced again in the past couple of years with very poorly-executed Clearview signs. The signs at the Duke Street (VA-236) interchange are particularly bad in terms of letters too large for the sign size and text that feels crammed-in. So one of the problems there is that while at first blush it seems like a good place to examine the legibility of the new sign versus the old, upon further examination it may not be a good place because of problems with the particular new signs that are not necessarily directly attributable solely to the use of Clearview.

If memory serves me correctly, the signs there used to say "Duke Street" in both directions (technically correct), but now the panels for Va. 236 read "Little River Turnpike," since the border between the City of Alexandria and Fairfax County is about  a block west of the interchange.

And I agree with you - the signs have a crammed-in, very busy look to them.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2012, 11:00:44 AM
One thing I found interesting on I-395 (a road I used to drive to work every day) is that the signs that went up around 2000 or so were generally a noticeably darker green than what Virginia had used in the past, whereas the new ones now are a much brighter green (no doubt for reflective reasons). So that's a further variable. I rather liked the darker green color and I'd have liked to have seen Clearview used on that background to compare it. I'll see if I can find a picture of one of those darker signs and I'll edit this post if I do.

For as long as I can remember, BGSs in Virginia were a series of rectangular panels, held together by seams (and rivets or screws in those seams).  Five or six years ago, new signs along I-395 (I remember the ones from about Arlington Ridge Road up to the D.C. line at the 14th Street Bridge) were installed, which had a distinctly "Maryland" look to them.  Instead of the panels, they used those extruded aluminum "strips" (which Md. SHA and MdTA have favored for many years).

They had a "greener" and brighter green than what I have seen in Virginia.

Quote from: 1995hoo on August 02, 2012, 11:00:44 AM
Edited to add: Afraid I don't have a good picture. Problem is the lighting conditions were so different in all the pictures that it makes it hard to tell what's due to the sheet metal and what's due to the lighting itself. The best picture I have is on a blindingly bright Sunday morning when the road was covered with snow back in February 2010 (incidentally, the picture confirms that some of the Clearview signs were in place by then) and the point of the picture was more the snow than anything else.

Then came the Clearview installations - as you said, including the ones around the Va. 236 interchange.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on August 02, 2012, 07:49:18 PM
Quote from: deathtopumpkins on August 02, 2012, 07:31:21 AM

The light issues were on Virginia signs. Only the newest of the new Massachusetts signs have the same issue and still aren't nearly as bad. No idea why. I don't really notice it in Mass, but back in Virginia signs were extremely difficult to read at night because when your headlights hit them they just reflected all the light right back to you, preventing you from reading the legend. Like you said, it gets brighter, but the whole sign gets brighter, becoming nothing but light.

I personally don't see why it was such an issue that the signs try to look the same at night that they did during the day. There's no concern about being too reflective or anything like that if only the letters are reflective (i.e. button copy). So long as a sign has a nonreflective background and reflective letters/border/arrows/etc. there is no question of being able to see it.

I haven't been through Virginia since 2009, so I haven't personally observed any of their latest Interstate sign installations.  However, it almost sounds to me like VDOT is using a lesser grade sheeting for the legends than for the backgrounds.  Remember that there are several grades of HIP sheeting.  So, a Type IX background would indeed "bleed out" a Type IV legend.  Although Type IV is classified as a HIP material, its performance more closely matches the older high-intensity sheeting than most of the current HIP sheetings (Type VIII or better).
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: mcmc on August 02, 2012, 09:40:48 PM
Practically speaking, how long can we expect "interim" approval for Clearview to last? Eventually a final decision must be made. Any predictions when? And what the verdict will be?
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on August 03, 2012, 11:02:15 AM
Quote from: mcmc on August 02, 2012, 09:40:48 PM
Practically speaking, how long can we expect "interim" approval for Clearview to last? Eventually a final decision must be made. Any predictions when? And what the verdict will be?

Imterim approval is usually given by FHWA as a means to allow DOTs to use a field proven device until it can be added to the next MUTCD update.  The "12 LOGO" option for service signing, which - unlike Clearview - underwent extensive "on the road" testing first, is a good example of this (The "12 LOGO" option was added to the 2009 MUTCD).  I've heard rumors that Clearview still requires interim approval, and was not added to either the 2009 MUTCD or the 2009 Supplement to the Standard Highway Signs Booklet as an option, because it is a proprietary font.

By comparison, it's interesting to note that "Arrow Per Lane" signs went directly from a concept (1995 Older Drivers Handbook) to an MUTCD standard, and bypassed the Interim Approval process completely.  Note that, when the NPA for the 2009 MUTCD was issued in 2007, there were only about four "Arrow Per Lane" sign installations in the entire country.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: vdeane on August 03, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
If it's just the proprietary issue, that would mean 10-15 years if we're dealing with a patent, forever if a copyright (theoretically copyrights expire, but they get extended every time Micky Mouse is slated to go public domain; copyrights will never expire for as long as Walt Disney is still around).
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 03, 2012, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 03, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
If it's just the proprietary issue, that would mean 10-15 years if we're dealing with a patent, forever if a copyright (theoretically copyrights expire, but they get extended every time Micky Mouse is slated to go public domain; copyrights will never expire for as long as Walt Disney is still around).

Twenty years in the case of a patent. But the fact that the ClearviewHwy website doesn't mention either a patent or a pending patent strongly indicates that they haven't sought such protection.

On the other point, Disney would go apeshit if the copyright on Song of the South expired because it would mean people could actually see the movie again without jumping through hoops to find it–although, on the other hand, if the copyright were to expire they could make money in advance of that by releasing a super-deluxe version with bonus features and interviews with the agitators who think it's racist and the like.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: mcmc on August 03, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
It seems self-defeating for the makers of Clearview to do anything to hinder widespread DOT usage of their fonts. Getting approval in the MUTCD would pave the way for a much wider adoption than we see now. So if patents/copyright were an issue hindering this approval, wouldn't they want to do everything they could to avoid it? They could protect their copyright/patents plenty of ways (free or cheap licensing to selective agencies, for example).
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: vdeane on August 03, 2012, 09:31:09 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2012, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: deanej on August 03, 2012, 11:34:13 AM
If it's just the proprietary issue, that would mean 10-15 years if we're dealing with a patent, forever if a copyright (theoretically copyrights expire, but they get extended every time Micky Mouse is slated to go public domain; copyrights will never expire for as long as Walt Disney is still around).

Twenty years in the case of a patent. But the fact that the ClearviewHwy website doesn't mention either a patent or a pending patent strongly indicates that they haven't sought such protection.

On the other point, Disney would go apeshit if the copyright on Song of the South expired because it would mean people could actually see the movie again without jumping through hoops to find it–although, on the other hand, if the copyright were to expire they could make money in advance of that by releasing a super-deluxe version with bonus features and interviews with the agitators who think it's racist and the like.
Yes, patents last 20 years, but clearview has been around at least 5 years or more.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: 1995hoo on August 03, 2012, 09:47:05 PM
OK, good point. I was thinking in terms of the full patent term, not in terms of the practical effect here.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: roadman on August 04, 2012, 11:16:26 PM
Quote from: mcmc on August 03, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
They could protect their copyright/patents plenty of ways (free or cheap licensing to selective agencies, for example).

The only way I see that concept working is if the Clearview fonts were licensed to state DOTs, say through a sign software vendor like SignCAD or Transoft, with the condition that the DOTs could distribute the fonts free of charge to their approved sign contractors and fabricators.

Remember also that, unlike TrueType or similar software fonts, Clearview is a font intended specifically for use on highway signs on public roads.  It disturbs me that the developers of the font, who were obviously paid by somebody to do the inital development and research, still feel the need to collect a fee everytime somebody wants to use Clearview on their signs.  If they truly did the research for FHWA, and got paid by government grants (even if those grants were indirect payments through universities), then one could argue that the final work product (Clearview) is actually the property of the Federal Government, and not that of the initial developers.

I design BGS (and LGS) signs, among many other tasks, for a living and, yes, I do get paid for that.  But, using this same model the Clearview developers are arguing (pay me for my work again, even though I've already gotten paid for doing that same work), it stands to reason that I should also be able to collect a royality (say a nickel a driver) from every driver who passes under (or by) one of my signs.

And don't worry, I value my job too much to even dream of suggesting that last idea to my employer.  Still, it's an interesting thought.
Title: Re: Do any engineers here favor Clearview?
Post by: SidS1045 on August 04, 2012, 11:29:01 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on August 03, 2012, 12:02:19 PM
Disney would go apeshit if the copyright on Song of the South expired because it would mean people could actually see the movie again without jumping through hoops to find it—although, on the other hand, if the copyright were to expire they could make money in advance of that by releasing a super-deluxe version with bonus features and interviews with the agitators who think it's racist and the like.

...as would CBS if their copyright on Amos and Andy expired, for the same reason.