Warning Signs: From Words to Symbols; Back to Words

[Brian556]

In recent times, many of the symbol signs in the MUTCD have been eliminated, in favor of worded signs. The rational being that many drivers do not understand the symbols.
My opinion: Symbols are much better than words because they are instantly reckonizabe without reading, and are understood by those who do not speak english.


Some of the symbols that have been eliminated:
LANE ENDS
NARROW BRIDGE
PAVEMENT ENDS

Let's hear y'all's opinions...

[corco]

I've never seen LANE ENDS used without the symbol also used (and I'm 99.998% sure the symbol still exists), so that I'm not too concerned about.

Narrow bridge to me is a logical symbol for which the symbol should be sufficient.

Pavement Ends didn't really have a good symbol and usually only occurs on local roads (which generally have people who speak English or are familiar with the area), so the words are fine.

[Truvelo]

Over here there seems to be an increase in the number of symbols. Although not roads related the most obvious example is the EXIT sign in public buildings. Until around 10 years ago they had just EXIT in writing but now they have a symbol of a man running towards a door without the word EXIT. I much prefer the worded version. Even though I don't speak French or Spanish I know very well what SORTIE and SALIDA mean.

As for the examples mentioned in the original post the lane ends sign is pretty much universal throughout the world so it amazes me to see it is being withdrawn.

[Chris]

symbols are a must in Europe, there are approximately 20 different languages within a 1,000 mile range from my city.

For example, most people have no idea what " Węzeł, Razcep, Uscita or Křižovatka " means, but they do understand the symbol:

[Bryant5493]

Hmm. I know I've still seen, like corco said, the symbol for a lane ending (the straight left lane/right lane with the bent left lane/right lane), along with the signage "Right/Left Lane Ends" and "Lane Ends - Merge Left/Right." Many of these are new installations.

I've not seen too many new signs with the narrow bridge symbol; just the words "Narrow Bridge," I've seen. I have seen some pavement ending symbols, but they look funny (lol). Most signage for pavement that ends has just the words "Pavement Ends."

A lot of folks don't pay attention, so it doesn't really matter if you use symbols or write out what's going on.


Be well,

Bryant

[J N Winkler]

I checked against the current (2009) and 2003 editions of the MUTCD because I had a hard time believing symbol signs for the three conditions listed had been eliminated.  Here is the story:

*  Symbol signing is still an option for "LANE ENDS," but the old pavement width transition sign (which was often misinterpreted as "SHOULDER ENDS") has been replaced with a new symbol sign showing a lane stripe ending at a taper.  This was introduced in the 2003 edition.

*  I can find no evidence that "PAVEMENT ENDS" was ever a FHWA-approved symbol.  The approach I have seen in the field is a graphic (not in perspective) showing striped blacktop giving way to gravel.  The 2003 and 2009 editions show only word-message signs for this condition.

*  "NARROW BRIDGE":  there was once a FHWA-approved symbol for this condition, but it is absent from the 2003 and 2009 editions.  I am fairly sure it was in the 1988 edition but I am not sure whether it appeared in the Millennium (2001) edition.  (FWIW, I disagree with removal of the narrow-bridge symbol sign, but I also don't think the symbol was particularly easy to interpret.)

With the exception of "NARROW BRIDGE," it is hard to draw from these three examples a general inference that the MUTCD is moving away from symbol signing.  In fact, the 2009 edition introduced tons of new symbols, mainly for animal warning signs, and agencies now have (for example) ways to differentiate between tame and wild horses in signing crossing hazards.

Where the symbol versus word issue is concerned, the tradeoff has always been between recognition and comprehension.  Symbols are recognized from much greater distances, but are not necessarily easily understood.  We had most of our easy wins when we rolled out a large number of symbol signs in 1972 and many of the sign messages which remain in text only are difficult to communicate using symbols.  (How would you render "Keep right except to pass," for example?)  There are some borderline cases where neither text messages nor symbols work particularly well and so standards keep changing until a satisfactory solution is found.  This has been happening with "LANE ENDS" since the 1960's, for example--the current symbol sign is very similar to one used in the 1961 MUTCD except for the second stripe.

[roadfro]

*  I can find no evidence that "PAVEMENT ENDS" was ever a FHWA-approved symbol.  The approach I have seen in the field is a graphic (not in perspective) showing striped blacktop giving way to gravel.  The 2003 and 2009 editions show only word-message signs for this condition.

*  "NARROW BRIDGE":  there was once a FHWA-approved symbol for this condition, but it is absent from the 2003 and 2009 editions.  I am fairly sure it was in the 1988 edition but I am not sure whether it appeared in the Millennium (2001) edition.  (FWIW, I disagree with removal of the narrow-bridge symbol sign, but I also don't think the symbol was particularly easy to interpret.)

Revision 1 (12/28/2001) of the MUTCD Millennium Edition still had the Narrow Bridge symbol sign (W5-2a). The symbol sign was an option that could be used in lieu of the "NARROW BRIDGE" word message sign (W5-2).

This same edition did not have a symbol equivalent for the pavement ends sign. While I have seen a couple symbol signs similar to those JN described in Nevada, word message signs are far more prominent.

With the exception of "NARROW BRIDGE," it is hard to draw from these three examples a general inference that the MUTCD is moving away from symbol signing.  In fact, the 2009 edition introduced tons of new symbols, mainly for animal warning signs, and agencies now have (for example) ways to differentiate between tame and wild horses in signing crossing hazards.

Where the symbol versus word issue is concerned, the tradeoff has always been between recognition and comprehension.  Symbols are recognized from much greater distances, but are not necessarily easily understood.  We had most of our easy wins when we rolled out a large number of symbol signs in 1972 and many of the sign messages which remain in text only are difficult to communicate using symbols.  (How would you render "Keep right except to pass," for example?)  There are some borderline cases where neither text messages nor symbols work particularly well and so standards keep changing until a satisfactory solution is found.  This has been happening with "LANE ENDS" since the 1960's, for example--the current symbol sign is very similar to one used in the 1961 MUTCD except for the second stripe.

In general, words are going to symbols but symbols aren't going back to words. There has been a big push to increase symbolization in standard signs, with the intent of increasing recognition at a distance. In preparing the current edition of the MUTCD, FHWA made a big deal about the introduction of many new symbols for standard signs.

Many changes to warning signs involve symbols. New symbol signs include the various animal warning signs, falling rocks, three lane road, trail crossing (combined ped/bike crossing). Also, many warning signs with both symbol and word messages had their optional word equivalents removed (hill, divided highway begins/ends, stop ahead, yield ahead, signal ahead).

There are a number of other new symbol designs that were introduced in other areas of the manual as well, with the interest of increased recognition and comprehension. This isn't always possible, though, as JN mentioned. One proposed symbol sign to replace the regulatory message "Do Not Pass" actually ended up being removed before the current edition was finalized. The symbol's design (two cars side by side, with a red prohibitive slash through the left car) was ultimately judged to not clearly convey the meaning of the sign--this is despite the fact that the symbol has supposedly been used successfully in Canada for many years.

[Alps]

I checked against the current (2009) and 2003 editions of the MUTCD because I had a hard time believing symbol signs for the three conditions listed had been eliminated.  Here is the story:

*  I can find no evidence that "PAVEMENT ENDS" was ever a FHWA-approved symbol.  The approach I have seen in the field is a graphic (not in perspective) showing striped blacktop giving way to gravel.  The 2003 and 2009 editions show only word-message signs for this condition.

It was far from universally applied, so I would assume it was a test run.  Canada I believe uses something similar?  I for one like it.

[Scott5114]

the Pavement Ends and Narrow Bridge symbol signs were both shown in the Oklahoma DPS Driver's Manual, and have been ever since I got my second copy of it in the late 90s. (The first copy appeared to have not been updated from the 1960s as it treated symbol signs as the next great thing in road signage.) ODOT used the graphical Narrow Bridge sign extensively, but I never saw them use Pavement Ends. On the other hand, TxDOT did post the graphical Pavement Ends whenever Jake and I hit the end of the random FM that we unsuccessfully attempted to use to take us out of Childress County.

[mgk920]

Also, a few years ago (2003?), a yellow warning sign with the three arrows in a circle image for 'roundabout' was added to the USA's MUTCD.

The latest revision added a uniform yellow warning sign image for 'reduced speed ahead', too.  Prior to that, it was a black-on-white text sign that MANY corrupt local jurisdictions made as small and innocuous as possible.

Mike

[mightyace]

The latest revision added a uniform yellow warning sign image for 'reduced speed ahead', too.  Prior to that, it was a black-on-white text sign that MANY corrupt local jurisdictions made as small and innocuous as possible.

I've seen that in other states like GA and NC but not many here in TN.

How long does anyone think it will take for those to become near universal?

[roadfro]

Also, a few years ago (2003?), a yellow warning sign with the three arrows in a circle image for 'roundabout' was added to the USA's MUTCD.

The Millennium MUTCD used a roundabout symbol sign that had a solid O-shaped circle with four nubs protruding outside the circle at the horizontal and vertical sides. The sign code was W2-6, and I believe the symbol was introduced in this edition of the manual.

The 2003 MUTCD revised the W2-6 sign to the use current three-arrow circle, and introduced the "Traffic Circle" optional plaque (W16-12p). The "Roundabout" optional plaque (W16-17p) wasn't introduced until the recent 2009 MUTCD, after many jurisdictions had created similar plaques to better reflect the situation.

The latest revision added a uniform yellow warning sign image for 'reduced speed ahead', too.  Prior to that, it was a black-on-white text sign that MANY corrupt local jurisdictions made as small and innocuous as possible.

The "Reduced Speed Limit Ahead" symbol (W3-5) and "xx MPH SPEED ZONE AHEAD" text (W3-5a) warning signs were introduced in the 2003 MUTCD, not the recent 2009 version.  These signs replaced the "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD" (R2-5a) and "REDUCED SPEED xx" (R2-5b) regulatory signs--the rationale was informing road users of a reduced speed limit is not a regulation but rather a warning condition.  With both the old regulatory signs and new warning signs, a regular speed limit sign is required downstream of the sign.

[codyg1985]

In some areas in Alabama, I have seen DIVIDED HIGHWAY and DIVIDED HIGHWAY ENDS as opposed to the symbols. As a matter of fact, the Alabama Standard Highway Signs Sheet doesn't have the symbols listed for those.

The 2009 MUTCD shows W6-1 and W6-2 as the symbols for Divided Highway and Divided Highway Ends.

[realjd]

This is what Florida has gone to almost universally for speed limit reductions:

[bugo]

This is what Florida has gone to almost universally for speed limit reductions:

Oklahoma has switched to these as well.

[Chris]

I've seen them in Texas as well. I don't like them, too small, plus speed limits don't belong in warning signs.

[Scott5114]

This is in the 2003 MUTCD. Oklahoma's version is slightly different; the speed is a lot larger. These are a lot better than what we had before, which was just a sign that said "Speed Zone Ahead" without any indication of what the speed was.

[J N Winkler]

I've seen them in Texas as well. I don't like them, too small, plus speed limits don't belong in warning signs.

Speed limits do belong in warning signs if the purpose of the sign is to warn of an upcoming condition.

Before this sign was introduced, there were basically two MUTCD-supported options for warning of a reduced speed limit.  One was to post "SPEED ZONE AHEAD" which, as others have noted, was very unhelpful.  The other was to post "REDUCED SPEED XX" where XX was the reduced speed.  I think the suggested size of the speed limit digits in the current warning sign is basically the same as the suggested size for the same digits in the old "REDUCED SPEED XX" sign, at the size classes recommended for use on high-speed two-lane highways.

Anyway, the size of the digits is not the most pressing sign comprehension problem on high-speed conventional-road state highways.  We really need to get away from 6" uppercase-only/6" uppercase, 4.5" lowercase mixed-case lettering on D-series guide signs.  I think California has already standardized on 8" uppercase/6" lowercase Series E Modified for its G-series equivalents.  It's a bit ridiculous when a two-lane rural highway and a four-lane Interstate can both have speed limits of 65 MPH but guide signs on the Interstate get letters more than twice as tall and in a less condensed alphabet series.

[Duke87]

The speed limit sign in warning sign is simple, though I can see where it would be awkward.
I'm indifferent about it personally, though if you don't like it, there's always Connecticut's approach:

(picture from this site)

Until around 10 years ago they had just EXIT in writing but now they have a symbol of a man running towards a door without the word EXIT. I much prefer the worded version. Even though I don't speak French or Spanish I know very well what SORTIE and SALIDA mean.

Okay, that's weird. The red "EXIT" signs in buildings are ubiquitous and shouldn't be messed with. Besides, being able to read the word is unnecessary. If I see sign above a door or hanging from the ceiling in lit up red letters, I'd know it was an exit sign even if it was written in hieroglyphs.

Meanwhile, a number in a tab on a freeway sign would have the same comprehension, but some places don't use tabs for the numbers. That exit symbol's meaning is obvious, at least. The man running towards a door? Dunno, I'd have to see it.

[deathtopumpkins]

A few years ago we switched over to using entirely the yellow diamond speed limit ahead signs.  Before that we used no advance warning, except on interstates, where the standard "REDUCED SPEED AHEAD" black-on-white sign was used, and can still sometimes be found (see I-64 eastbound around the Denbeigh Blvd overpass in Newport News).

I greatly preferred the text sign, though I do like how this one specifies the new speed limit.

[Mergingtraffic]

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that worded signs create more attention in that motorists are more apt to read them than a symbol.  I forget where I read that. 

I like the old days when you had a warning sign as a symbol and the meaning on a seperate sign below the warning sign.  For example the merge synbol with a sign saying "merge" underneath it.

[thenetwork]

My biggest pet peeve is the contractors/state transportation departments that will swap out a symbolic STOP AHEAD sign with a text-only version.   

Ran into one yesterday.  A new STOP AHEAD sign that used to be an arrow above a red octagon.

[BigMattFromTexas]

Those speed limit warnding signs have popped up all over here, as Chris said, I kinda like em cause if you actually obey the signs they tell you the speed as opposed to "Reduced Speed Ahead". But thats just my opinion...
BigMatt

[roadfro]

Actually, I remember reading somewhere that worded signs create more attention in that motorists are more apt to read them than a symbol.  I forget where I read that. 

I like the old days when you had a warning sign as a symbol and the meaning on a seperate sign below the warning sign.  For example the merge synbol with a sign saying "merge" underneath it.

Motorists don't have to "read" a symbol...  Whether motorists are more apt to heed a word sign over a symbol sign because they must read it is debatable. When examined from the cognition standpoint, symbol signs are generally understood quicker because you don't have to read them. Quicker recognition increases driver reaction time.

The old plaques underneath signs such as "merge" are most likely remnants from the era when symbols were introduced. For the ones that still exist in the MUTCD, I believe these are referred to as "educational plaques". They are generally used with new symbol signs, and are deleted out of the manual after some time--"FALLING ROCKS" got a new optional plaque to accompany it's new symbol sign.

[hm insulators]

The latest revision added a uniform yellow warning sign image for 'reduced speed ahead', too.  Prior to that, it was a black-on-white text sign that MANY corrupt local jurisdictions made as small and innocuous as possible.

I've seen that in other states like GA and NC but not many here in TN.

The yellow "Speed Reduced Ahead" signs are now in Arizona, too; they've pretty much replaced the older black-on-white signs.