Too many signs symbols pavement markings?

[Mergingtraffic]

Nowadays there are so many signs and symbols and different kind of pavement markings...do you think it's overload for the driver?  Do they really know what they all mean?

For example, yield sign pavement markings, which is a series of triangles on the pavement...do drivers really know what they mean?  Do they comprehend them?
or

When a lane is about to end and the broken lines become short dashes...do drivers associate them that a lane is ending of splitting?

Is the new "School Bus Stop Ahead" sign more prevalent than it's text predecessor?

Some questions to ponder.

[Brandon]

I'm skeptical of the pavement markings.  The signs are fine, but the pavement markings will be covered in snow and will be scraped off by the plows within a few years.

[jakeroot]

If you spoke English, obviously symbols are pointless and every sign could be text. The issue is that not everyone speaks English. You need to provide symbols so that non-English speakers can still "participate" without being woefully confused.

I'm skeptical of the pavement markings.  The signs are fine, but the pavement markings will be covered in snow and will be scraped off by the plows within a few years.

The usefulness of pavement markings should be based on the ability of a driver being able to understand them, not whether or not they are covered in snow*.

*I-70 through the Rockies in Colorado is littered with roundabouts with the "yield ahead" symbol. Avon alone gets 185 inches of snow per year, yet gets on with them just fine.

[intelati49]

If you spoke English, obviously symbols are pointless and every sign could be text. The issue is that not everyone speaks English. You need to provide symbols so that non-English speakers can still "participate" without being woefully confused.

I'm a natural English speaker who can digest a book faster than most people. I still prefer the pictographs and symbols to text. You know the saying, "A picture is worth a thousand words?" As long as the picture isn't too complicated, the point can be made concisely.

As for the directional overload? I was just thinking about that. I think we are getting to that point actually.

[wisvishr0]

If you spoke English, obviously symbols are pointless and every sign could be text. The issue is that not everyone speaks English. You need to provide symbols so that non-English speakers can still "participate" without being woefully confused.



The usefulness of pavement markings should be based on the ability of a driver being able to understand them, not whether or not they are covered in snow*.

*I-70 through the Rockies in Colorado is littered with roundabouts with the "yield ahead" symbol. Avon alone gets 185 inches of snow per year, yet gets on with them just fine.

You're from Britain, right? I was over there last year for an interview and I saw that almost everything was conveyed through road markings. Sometimes, there were supplemental signs, but there were many junctions where there would only be a Give Way line, with no give way sign to accompany it. To be honest, I felt that signs were more distracting than the road markings!

I've also been watching mock UK driving tests in the UK (yes, I'm that geeky), and I found that examiners tell candidates to "follow the road ahead unless road markings tell you otherwise," but they never mention signs. Signs distract you more than pavement markings do. I love them.

They work well in England because, in the cities, it's rarely cold enough for snow to accumulate on the tar. I was in Scotland (Edinburgh) during a snow storm, though, and the road markings were promptly rendered invisible. Signs should be compulsory in the moderately snowy parts of the US for that reason (especially in places that get snow but don't have appropriate clearing equipment, such as DC).

They probably work well in Colorado because they have the plows to deal with snow.

[Brandon]

I'm skeptical of the pavement markings.  The signs are fine, but the pavement markings will be covered in snow and will be scraped off by the plows within a few years.

The usefulness of pavement markings should be based on the ability of a driver being able to understand them, not whether or not they are covered in snow*.

*I-70 through the Rockies in Colorado is littered with roundabouts with the "yield ahead" symbol. Avon alone gets 185 inches of snow per year, yet gets on with them just fine.

Hancock, Michigan sees over 220 inches of snow per year, and they do not plow to pavement.

[jakeroot]

Hancock, Michigan sees over 220 inches of snow per year, and they do not plow to pavement.

I don't see what Hancock has to do with whether or not pavement markings are useful. You've argued on other threads that pavement markings, in addition to warning signs, are useless due to some parts of the country being in a snowy climate. And in those areas, I can see your point; perhaps it would be a waste of money. But in other areas, such as the desert Southwest, where there is effectively no snow whatsoever, pavement markings are very useful and don't come off within a couple years.

Certainly, more extensive pavement markings are a regional thing. In some areas, they don't work as well. In other areas, they work very well. But to say that we shouldn't use them just because some parts of the country are too lazy to plow their roads shouldn't be enough to forgo their use nation-wide.

EDITED TO ADD BELOW

You're from Britain, right?

I take a lot of cues from Britain, but no I am not from there.

I was over there last year for an interview and I saw that almost everything was conveyed through road markings. Sometimes, there were supplemental signs, but there were many junctions where there would only be a Give Way line, with no give way sign to accompany it. To be honest, I felt that signs were more distracting than the road markings!

I've also been watching mock UK driving tests in the UK (yes, I'm that geeky), and I found that examiners tell candidates to "follow the road ahead unless road markings tell you otherwise," but they never mention signs. Signs distract you more than pavement markings do. I love them.

They work well in England because, in the cities, it's rarely cold enough for snow to accumulate on the tar. I was in Scotland (Edinburgh) during a snow storm, though, and the road markings were promptly rendered invisible. Signs should be compulsory in the moderately snowy parts of the US for that reason (especially in places that get snow but don't have appropriate clearing equipment, such as DC).

Yes, they seem to rely heavily on pavement markings, and I quite like this. I've only been to the UK once, but I certainly liked that the fact that I didn't need to constantly look at signs to see which lane I needed to be in. But, I do like signs, and I think it's important to use both.

Perhaps JN Winkler could jump in with his two cents as to why the UK uses so many pavement markings.

They probably work well in Colorado because they have the plows to deal with snow.

Hopefully, most areas that get lots of snow have good plowing equipment. If they don't get a lot of snow, then pavement markings should work just fine. If they do get a lot of snow, they should have the proper equipment to keep the snow off the roads. Either way, no excuse for having snowy roads.

[realjd]

I'm skeptical of the pavement markings.  The signs are fine, but the pavement markings will be covered in snow and will be scraped off by the plows within a few years.

Conversely though, pavement marking can't be blown down during a hurricane or a tornado.

[Scott5114]

I prefer signs to pavement markings because the paint OkDOT uses is barely reflective and tends to get obliterated by regular traffic, never mind snowplows.

[jakeroot]

I prefer signs to pavement markings because the paint OkDOT uses is barely reflective and tends to get obliterated by regular traffic, never mind snowplows.

I don't think that detracts from the overall benefit of pavement markings. Just because OkDOT does a shit job applying the markings doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be beneficial if applied properly.

[Brandon]

I prefer signs to pavement markings because the paint OkDOT uses is barely reflective and tends to get obliterated by regular traffic, never mind snowplows.

I don't think that detracts from the overall benefit of pavement markings. Just because OkDOT does a shit job applying the markings doesn't necessarily mean that they can't be beneficial if applied properly.

That said, plows do tend to remove, over time, anything that's even slightly raised (like markings) on the road.  I have seen striping slowly disappear over the course of a few winters.  Unlike in the south and northwest, the paint needs to be reapplied every few years or you wind up with a street with no markings whatsoever.  It's an added cost when the pavement markings are more complex than just stripes and lines.