News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Do any engineers here favor Clearview?

Started by mcmc, July 26, 2012, 09:56:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini


Central Avenue

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!)
Routewitches. These children of the moving road gather strength from travel . . . Rather than controlling the road, routewitches choose to work with it, borrowing its strength and using it to make bargains with entities both living and dead. -- Seanan McGuire, Sparrow Hill Road

hbelkins

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

hbelkins

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.

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.


Government would be tolerable if not for politicians and bureaucrats.

Scott5114

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.)
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

#31
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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

vdeane

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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

roadman

#33
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.

"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

roadman

#35
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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

cpzilliacus

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?
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Scott5114

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.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

J N Winkler

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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

PurdueBill

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.

KEK Inc.

Graphic designers and human design engineers are the ones who study fonts...  Not necessarily a civil engineer.

Take the road less traveled.

deathtopumpkins

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.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

agentsteel53

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?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

Takumi

^ 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
Quote from: Rothman on July 15, 2021, 07:52:59 AM
Olive Garden must be stopped.  I must stop them.

Don't @ me. Seriously.

roadman

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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

roadman

#46
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.
"And ninety-five is the route you were on.  It was not the speed limit sign."  - Jim Croce (from Speedball Tucker)

"My life has been a tapestry
Of years of roads and highway signs" (with apologies to Carole King and Tom Rush)

deathtopumpkins

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.
Disclaimer: All posts represent my personal opinions and not those of my employer.

Clinched Highways | Counties Visited

1995hoo

#48
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.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

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.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.