United States Interstate Highways Thread on SkyscraperCity

[vdeane]

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

[Duke87]

"Non-permanent ending of 2x2-converted stretch."

In Germany you would read "Ende Ausbaustrecke"

"Divided highway ends", basically.
Hey, we actually have a symbol for that!

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

An American route shield, yes. Europe seems to always use rectangles for route markers, so the conflict isn't present.

[sammack]

If we replaced the double yellow centerline with double white, we wouldn't have a problem--context is everything.

Sorry to disagree.  For at least 50 years double yellow lines, or in some states double yellow lines with a white broken line in between were used to separate opposing traffic.

It is understood I think by most conscious drivers that the yellow line on the left means there is, with a few exceptions opposing traffic to the left of that.

[mgk920]

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

OTOH, some USA states' route shields look a LOT like speed limit signs.  For example, it is not unusual for Chicago city cops to stop vehicles for speeding on Cicero Ave "Isn't the limit '50'?".  It's posted limit is '35', but it is Illinois state route 50.



BTW, the only USA state that has a red circle on its route marker is New Mexico (a Zia 'Sun' symbol).

Mike

[J N Winkler]

Sorry to disagree.  For at least 50 years double yellow lines, or in some states double yellow lines with a white broken line in between were used to separate opposing traffic.

That doesn't mean a different system wouldn't also work.  Double white solid lines already have the meaning "do not cross."  If the line already says "do not cross" and it is clearly in the middle of the road, then it is easy to recognize as a centerline.  This is how such stripes work in Europe, including in many countries which have lower fatality rates per unit distance travelled (on both motorways and ordinary roads) than the US.  Double white solid is not easy to misinterpret; the real problem, as I noted, comes with hazard lines when they are used as centerlines on multilane undivided roads.

Before 1978, many states successfully used white (broken) centerlines to indicate passing zones.

[aswnl]

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

From my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

[froggie]

From my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

Taken in context, this is important in Europe because you have several different countries and languages within a relatively small area.  Traffic notwithstanding, it's quite easy to pass through a few different countries (each with its own language) within a 1 day travel span.

However, we don't have that particular situation on this side of the Atlantic.  Not when you have two of the four largest countries in the world (including one with the 3rd largest population) that share a common border and (officially at least) a common language.

[Bickendan]

Before 1978, many states successfully used white (broken) centerlines to indicate passing zones.

Interestingly, I'd interpret that (here in the US) as a one-way street, which would cause nasty dissonance on a very two-way two lane highway.

[SEWIGuy]

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

From my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

Actually, I would expect that if I were driving in Poland or the Czech Republic that I would understand the basics of their language enough to understand what the sign says.

[agentsteel53]

Actually, I would expect that if I were driving in Poland or the Czech Republic that I would understand the basics of their language enough to understand what the sign says.

I can barely understand them, and I grew up in a neighboring country!  Most Slavic languages tend not to baffle me quite so badly as those translations for "speed limit", though.

[Duke87]

Sorry to disagree.  For at least 50 years double yellow lines, or in some states double yellow lines with a white broken line in between were used to separate opposing traffic.

That doesn't mean a different system wouldn't also work.  Double white solid lines already have the meaning "do not cross."  If the line already says "do not cross" and it is clearly in the middle of the road, then it is easy to recognize as a centerline.

Except that nobody actually obeys the rule that you're not supposed to cross a solid white line. At least not around here.
Starting to use it to separate oncoming traffic would cause accidents. As a system it would work, but retraining drivers to get used to it would be a huge problem. As would changeover. Do you have any idea how much new paint that would require?

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

If the sign were in the same style, I'd think I'd easily be able to recognize it as a speed limit sign, regardless of the language. The trickier part would be remembering that it's in metric!
Also, don't assume that it would necessarily be translated into the local language. Stop signs in Italy say "STOP", in English. Not "SMETTA", "CESSA", or any other Italian word you could translate as "Stop". I would thus think it not entirely outlandish that even in a non-English speaking country, speed limit signs made in the North American style might just read "SPEED LIMIT". 
On the other hand, the Quebeçois have their stop signs saying "ARRÊT", so... it could go either way.

[english si]

The European speed limit signs are smaller and those signs don't really need the SPEED LIMIT (or equivalent in the local language) bit on them - what other signs are just numbers? If you know that red circles prohibit and blue, filled, circles means "manditory", then working it out isn't hard - remembering that the UK is mph, and everywhere else (hire cars would probably be metric-only on the speedo) is km/h is the difficult bit, but even that's a doddle.

That said, American vs European signage is like left-handedness and right-handedness - neither is better than the other, they are just different.

STOP signs don't need the letters, given that all over the world they are the same red octagon. The letters just make sure - I'm surprised that (the French especially) it's STOP throughout Western (latin alphabet) Europe, rather than whatever the native languages say. I've heard the Irish gaelic lobby want bilingual STOP signs, which I'd say "let them, if they pay for those outside the Gaeltacht. Give Way (Yield) signs also have a unique shape across Europe (triangle pointing down), and the Welsh have it bilingual. The French don't bother with words. The Irish have "yield" or the Gaelic equivalent.

The Republic of Ireland, in one of their many "we're not British" drives, decided to go with new world signage - Warning signs are yellow diamonds, rather than red triangles. Still pictoral, just different (I like their no parking sign as it's far more intuitive, likewise no entry, which is basically "no straight on")

[J N Winkler]

Taken in context, this is important in Europe because you have several different countries and languages within a relatively small area.  Traffic notwithstanding, it's quite easy to pass through a few different countries (each with its own language) within a 1 day travel span.

However, we don't have that particular situation on this side of the Atlantic.  Not when you have two of the four largest countries in the world (including one with the 3rd largest population) that share a common border and (officially at least) a common language.

This explains why having text-only speed limit signs does not inconvenience natives of the US and Canada.  I would just add that the inconvenience to foreign tourists (including those who are not fluent in English) is also minimal, because the legend and appearance of speed limit signs is highly standardized across the US.  A foreign tourist needs only to learn the words "SPEED LIMIT" to have some understanding of nearly all speed limit signs in all states, and except for outliers like Illinois SR 50, any white-background sign with two large digits and small writing over the digits is relatively easy to recognize as a speed limit sign.  (Even SR 50 is a dubious counterexample--the route marker sign is square while speed limits are uniformly on rectangular blanks.)

In continental Europe, by contrast, the need to understand the local language is somewhat less for speed limit and STOP signs but greater for signs indicating highly specific restrictions, like parking, "home zones," and the like.  Despite Vienna and its focus on symbolism, an American monoglot is arguably more disadvantaged in Europe than an European monoglot is in the US.

As a system it would work, but retraining drivers to get used to it would be a huge problem. As would changeover. Do you have any idea how much new paint that would require?

I am not advocating a change to white centerlines (mainly because I don't think the benefits in terms of cheaper pavement marking material justify the various switching costs), but I don't think a changeover has to be expensive or logistically complicated.  The standardized yellow centerline system we have had for the past 32 years is actually an anomaly.  In the preceding 40 years there were multiple marking systems in use in different states, and even now there is an extra-wide gap between the two solid yellow lines in Oregon as a legacy of the former three-line marking system.  The changeover to the present system was fairly gradual and people dealt with it by "reading the road," as we do now in Mexico--Mexico has been in the middle of a changeover from white to yellow for some time now and it is not uncommon to be driving on a rural two-lane and see the center stripe change from yellow to white to back again, or to see a yellow stripe crudely traced over an older white stripe.

As to the total mileage involved, I'd estimate (roughly) that no more than one million miles of the three million miles of public road in the US carry enough traffic to warrant a marked centerline of whatever color.

[aswnl]

If the sign were in the same style, I'd think I'd easily be able to recognize it as a speed limit sign, regardless of the language.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. What if the vast majority of countries in the world would arrange that circle signs with a red edge would mean "prohibited". Then you wouldn't be bothered by learning criptic texts in difficult languages, and you could drive safely on their roads even if you're just on holiday, because time for intepretation of those signs while driving is quite dangerous.

What if you would come to my country, and you would be driving at approx. 50 mph, and you would read the following texts in a yellow diamond - would you understand within a few seconds ? (And beware that Dutch is still part of the Germanic language family just like English - it can be much worse relating to other language families... !)
"slecht wegdek"
"beweegbare brug"
"scherpe bocht naar rechts"
"overweg"
"gevaarlijke kruising"
"zij- en rukwinden"
"uitholling overdwars"
"let op plotseling overstekende kinderen"
"wegversmalling rechterzijde rijbaan"
etcetera.

Not the whole world speaks English, and being able to drive safely abroad and knowing that foreigners will drive more safely in your own country, should be just the trigger to arrange more unity in signs and abolish text-signs as much as possible. Pleading in favour of textsigns is just shortminded in my point of view. Just my two cents...

[J N Winkler]

Aswnl, many of your examples are for conditions for which only text signs are available in much of Europe.  I will leave your legends untranslated and just describe what I know of the usages in the US and various European countries I have visited.

*  "slecht wegdek"--in Germany the generic "!" warning triangle is used for this with a supplementary plate reading "Strassenschaden."

*  "beweegbare brug"--these are fairly rare in the US and are generally contextually obvious because there is generally a bridge tender's house near one abutment and provision for bringing traffic to a halt using light signals.

*  "scherpe bocht naar rechts"--a symbolic sign for this condition has been in use since the late 1920's.

*  "overweg"--again, a symbolic sign is available for this condition, and has been since the 1970's at least (I rather think since the 1930's, but I haven't checked).  "HIGHWAY INTERSECTION XXX FT" is a Texan peculiarity, for which I will agree there is no firm defense.

*  "gevaarlijke kruising"--Not a good idea to use this sign without actually addressing what is wrong with the intersection.  I admit "HILL BLOCKS VIEW" (a common cause of intersection hazards) is not universally comprehensible, but symbol signs are being experimented with in New Mexico.  Lots of European countries use incomprehensible "accident black spot" signs for this class of hazard (except the countries whose traffic engineers have the nous to realize it is better to diagnose the hazard and fix it than to put up signs for it).

*  "zij- en rukwinden"--Don't have a symbol sign for this, I admit, but the value of signing this condition is IMO questionable--arguably, it makes more sense to educate drivers of conditions where high wind shear is likely, e.g. coming out of cuttings.

*  "uitholling overdwars"--What exactly does this translate?  We have symbol signs for dropoffs.

*  "let op plotseling overstekende kinderen"--We also have symbol signs for this, as well as provision (otherwise absent in Europe) for reduced speeds near schools when children are going to and from school.  This sign is commonly used with supplementary plates in Europe ("School" and "Playground" being possible legends in Britain).

*  "wegversmalling rechterzijde rijbaan"--Again, a symbol sign is available for this condition.

Not the whole world speaks English, and being able to drive safely abroad and knowing that foreigners will drive more safely in your own country, should be just the trigger to arrange more unity in signs and abolish text-signs as much as possible. Pleading in favour of textsigns is just shortminded in my point of view. Just my two cents...

It is important to have signs that can be understood by the majority of the driving population.  This will imply somewhat differing emphasis on use of text and symbol signs in different locations.  In the US, the vast majority of drivers will understand English, and the minority that don't will still be cued by the general color and form of the signs to watch out for changed conditions--in short, to "read the road."  Symbol signs have very good recognizability at distance but there have historically been problems with drivers not being able to attribute the correct meanings to particular symbol signs.  This was observed in Britain with the changeover from pre-Worboys (mixed symbols and text) signs to Worboys signs (generally symbol-only signs):  road user comprehension of common signs, as measured by the Road Research Laboratory, actually dropped after the Worboys signs were introduced.  This of course is not a complete argument against introducing the Worboys signs, and I believe they had benefits which outweighed this particular problem, but it does illustrate that conversion to symbol signs is not an unmixed blessing.

Speaking as an American who has lived in Europe for a number of years, and visited about eight European countries, I tend to smell hypocrisy when a native European lectures us about our text-only signs, and I then turn to pictures of that European's country's roads, and I see lots of text-only signs.  What does "Uitgezonderd" mean?  (I know I can look it up using Google Translate, but as you pointed out, I can't do that on the road at 80 km/h . . .)

[Mr_Northside]

and the Welsh have it bilingual.

I'm not sure if I was actually at the posted example... but if not I was darned close.  The week I was in Wales with my family, we were pretty much in that area of the country.  (We stayed with relatives not too far away in the Rhondda valley in Maerdy).  I know we were on the A-470 fairly often, but not sure if I was in that exact spot.

And pretty much everything in Wales is bi-lingual.

[mgk920]

From my point of view a sign without text is far superior because it can be understood quickly by drivers using many different languages.

Taken in context, this is important in Europe because you have several different countries and languages within a relatively small area.  Traffic notwithstanding, it's quite easy to pass through a few different countries (each with its own language) within a 1 day travel span.

However, we don't have that particular situation on this side of the Atlantic.  Not when you have two of the four largest countries in the world (including one with the 3rd largest population) that share a common border and (officially at least) a common language.

USA and Mexico?

 

BTW, Mexico uses the 'red circle' style of speed limit sign, with 'km/h' below the number.

Mike

[mgk920]

IMO Speed Limit XX is far superior to the red circle.  The circle looks too much like a route shield.

Would you think the same if you would travel abroad, and would find a Polish sign telling you "Ograniczenie prędkości XX", then driving on to the Czech republic a sign telling you "Rychlostní omezení  XX", then into Austria and Switzerland "Höchstgeschwindigkeit  XX", further to France telling you "Limitation de vitesse  XX", etcetera ??

If the sign were in the same style, I'd think I'd easily be able to recognize it as a speed limit sign, regardless of the language. The trickier part would be remembering that it's in metric!
Also, don't assume that it would necessarily be translated into the local language. Stop signs in Italy say "STOP", in English. Not "SMETTA", "CESSA", or any other Italian word you could translate as "Stop". I would thus think it not entirely outlandish that even in a non-English speaking country, speed limit signs made in the North American style might just read "SPEED LIMIT". 
On the other hand, the Quebeçois have their stop signs saying "ARRÊT", so... it could go either way.

Well, in every other country in the World outside the USA and Canada, other than in the UK, the number inside the red circle is in km/h, so remembering it as being in kilometers should not be a problem.  I would think that the problem, at least in Europe, is that in the UK, the number inside the red circle is in MPH, especially when crossing the border between the UK and Ireland (which uses km/h).

BTW, tell those hardhead Quebecors that STOP signs in France also say "STOP"



Mike

[Stephane Dumas]

BTW, tell those hardhead Quebecors that STOP signs in France also say "STOP"

Mike

Well, it might be a mission impossible 

Btw, there some cities here who got stop signs like Granby
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.41469,-72.727733&spn=0,359.94524&z=15&layer=c&cbll=45.414674,-72.727967&panoid=PfsqoUtSvjkU8tpmrNFlOg&cbp=12,128.48,,0,0.49

another one at Lennoxville, now amalgated to Sherbrooke
http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.366921,-71.858053&spn=0,359.94524&z=15&layer=c&cbll=45.36875,-71.863122&panoid=DeEHePAUTkP-9Se3ZefMFA&cbp=12,12.01,,0,-6.14

at the Kanhawakhe Mohawk reserve http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=45.407489,-73.687277&spn=0,359.89048&z=14&layer=c&cbll=45.407564,-73.687209&panoid=O0mdzqpif3VOkfLb9wIk4g&cbp=12,71.95,,0,4.15

one bilingual French-Huron language at the Wendake Huron Indian village near Quebec city  http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=46.864593,-71.360021&spn=0.00892,0.05476&z=15&layer=c&cbll=46.864589,-71.360003&panoid=0ut7o2DNnSVcY_zmo3aLYg&cbp=11,2.11,,0,3.45

[Chris]

Speaking as an American who has lived in Europe for a number of years, and visited about eight European countries, I tend to smell hypocrisy when a native European lectures us about our text-only signs, and I then turn to pictures of that European's country's roads, and I see lots of text-only signs.  What does "Uitgezonderd" mean?  (I know I can look it up using Google Translate, but as you pointed out, I can't do that on the road at 80 km/h . . .)

True story, not to mention temporary signs in Europe which often have text on them in the native language only. Due to increasing legal insanity in this country those "exception" signs are increasingly common. "uitgezonderd laden en lossen" or "fietsers afstappen", "situatie gewijzigd", "let op" , or "-destination- bereikbaar" etc.

Or stuff like this. I don't think a Polish or Bulgarian trucker would understand such signs:

[J N Winkler]

I can only begin to understand that last sign and I am a native English speaker with a little German vocabulary.  "Brug" is bridge, "Last" (I'm guessing) means much the same in Dutch that it does in German (i.e., freight, cargo), and I think "volg" is cognate with "folgende" in German, so my rough translation is:  (bottom panel) for these various parts of the district, follow the marked L1 and L2 routes; (middle panel) names of landmark bridges; and (top panel) parking for lorries?

Another problem with text on the supplementary plates is that it interferes with rejectability ("does that message apply to me, or can I ignore it?").

BTW, tell those hardhead Quebecors that STOP signs in France also say "STOP"

I have got news for you on that one--"STOP" is now officially considered a French word for purposes of traffic signing in Québec.  In other words, you can now use "STOP" instead of "ARRÊT" anywhere on the provincial highway network in Québec, regardless of whether the area is majority French- or English-speaking.  Of course, any traffic engineer who tried to do this would probably be lynched, but at least the legal option exists.

[english si]

and the Welsh have it bilingual.

I'm not sure if I was actually at the posted example... but if not I was darned close.  The week I was in Wales with my family, we were pretty much in that area of the country.  (We stayed with relatives not too far away in the Rhondda valley in Maerdy).  I know we were on the A-470 fairly often, but not sure if I was in that exact spot.

It's at the northern end of the Merthyr Tydfil (that's the English name, yet is still unspellable) bypass, on the edge of the national park. Maerdy is a valley over from Rhondda, and Merthyr is a couple further over. If you went to Brecon, you'd have passed here, if most of your A470 (no dash please: half a space if you can, and dots are archaic, but also correct; most people use no gap) use was heading to Cardiff, then you haven't used this bit.

I chose it pretty much at random. I just randomly chose a part of Wales and tried to find a give way sign! I think the closest I've been to there is Crickhowell on the A40. Most of my Welsh trips have been to Cardiff, Swansea or North Wales. Here's another, in a rather scenic place I had a lovely Welsh Cream Tea in (normal tea and scone with cream and jam, plus a welsh cake and a slab of bara brith - really rather big, but worth it). Welsh would be a first language here (or people would be truly bilingual). I love it that Streetview covers the whole UK now.

And pretty much everything in Wales is bi-lingual.

Except the majority of people! Outside the North or West, Welsh language is not spoken and is barely a second language. There's been signs in Cardiff saying opposite (look left vs look right) that have lasted months without someone noticing. Swansea had a sign where the Welsh said something like "I'm sorry I'm not in the office at the moment, on holiday for a week" that someone had as an automated e-mail response. When you get to Newport and other parts of Monmouthshire, it's like putting signs up in French to them - just a language that they learn at school. It's worth noting that the Welsh language lobby is very powerful (especially compared to the Ulster Scots or Cornish lobbies). Scottish Gaelic's lobby is pushing for bilingual signs all over Scotland, despite it not being a native language for the far north, or the lowlands - the Western Isles have mono-lingual (in Gaelic) directional signs (Steornabhagh rather than Stornoway, or both, on signs)

It's funny, I know a bit of Welsh, but it all comes from road signs and place names. Aber is mouth/confluence, Afon is river, Araf (which those who have been to Wales will automatically know) means slow, Diweed means end, etc.

[Mr_Northside]

We did check out the Brecon Beacons after a nice meal with some relatives at some restaurant in Aberdare... but I can't remember where we entered the park from... it very well could have been there.

My dad has been trying to learn to speak Welsh.  I think he can do OK reading/writing.  Pronunciation, I've been told, is much more difficult.