Wednesday, 13 October 2010

Signage improvements: Motorway and service signs

Further to our previous article showing the metrication of distance signage (including motorway and services signs). The most important thing is to metricate all applicable signs. This article will show how motorway signs can be improved further, by replacing wholly worded signs with their symbolic equivalents, and improvements to services signs (including space efficiency and removal of unnecessary wording).

Example images are shown in this article.

Junction symbols

Used on motorway exit signs throughout continental Europe, there are simple junction symbols and complex motorway-motorway crossing symbols used on motorway exit signs:
The reason why these are being mentioned, is that this could be used to distinguish metric from imperial signs at a glance (as opposed to using different fonts or colours for the metric distance). Furthermore, these symbols are a language independent way of saying junction, specifically the two types of junction.

There is no harm in including these symbols to signify simple junction and motorway-motorway junction (these symbols are standard), and reasons for recommending usage of these symbols is because one has to remember that road users from outside the UK (including continental Europe) could be using British roads, and this gives a quick way of distinguishing metric and imperial signs mid-conversion.

Motorway exit signs

Minimum: Simple motorway junction 1600m ahead after mandatory metrication (left);
Alternative: Simple motorway junction after metrication and adding junction symbol (centre);
Alternative: Redesign of junction sign, Autobahn-style, initial approach only (right)

Minimum: Motorway junction 800m ahead after mandatory metrication (left)
Alternative: Motorway junction 800m ahead after metrication and adding junction symbol (right)

After metricating alone, this is the minimum, and also mandatory (top);
After mandatory metrication, and adding the simple junction symbol (bottom)

This change includes the minimum of metrication.


This change includes metrication, plus adding the simple junction symbol

An (optional) alternative design, if this was to be considered.
This is not needed to go metric or be compliant to the Vienna Convention.
This design is very similar to an Autobahn gantry sign in Germany.

Metrication of motorway-motorway junction advance sign,
with the addition of the motorway-motorway junction symbol,
instead of the language-specific "Junction".

Motorway gantry sign after metrication, same as in a previous article (top)
 Motorway gantry sign after metrication, and adding motorway junction-junction symbol (bottom)

As a bare minimum, only metrication is necessary. However I believe that "The WEST"
is unhelpful and too general, should be replaced with an actual place name or removed.

Metrication, plus, "The WEST" replaced by "Bristol" which is more helpful.
This change is mandatory.

Metrication, replacing "The WEST" with "Bristol", and the motorway-motorway junction symbol.

The point being made in this subsection, is that if there are ways of improving the signs, they should be considered.  The most important thing is to metricate, and get rid of all superfluous words.  It is also much better to use internationally recognised symbols than words.

However, I believe that as a minimum, British motorway exit signs only need to be made metric to comply with the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals.

Examples of converting wordy signs

Wordy signs should be avoided, for example in this case (left).
A possible symbolic version of "No hard shoulder for 800m" (right).

Instead of saying in words "Refuge area for emergency use only",
it is more helpful to have a symbol for emergency refuge area, and how far it is.
It should already be obvious that this area is for emergency use only anyway.

Instead of saying in words "Emergency refuge area", it is more helpful to have
a symbol for emergency refuge area, and a separate standalone symbol for SOS phone,
unless SOS phones are present in every emergency refuge area, which they should be.

Emergency refuge area on hard shoulder or single lane (left);
Emergency refuge area where no hard shoulder is present, and multiple lanes are (right).
These signs are suitable for usage in tunnels as well as on the motorway.

Services signage improvements

As a minimum, the services signs need to be metricated and use correct units.
We can do better and use symbolic signs which are clearer and will help distinguish metric signs easily too.

As a minimum, metrication is required (left);
But it is better we know which facilities are avaiable at 1600m (right).
Supplementary plate shows next services.

Another example of a services 1600m ahead sign, with a minimum (left),
and recommended conversion (right) with a symbolic representation of
"No Services" shown on the suplementary plate showing next services.

Minimum change - Services 800m ahead after metrication (left);
Recommended change - make the services sign more space efficient (centre);
Recommended alternative - more space efficient, and the word "services" removed (right).

In a services sign, it is better to have a single symbol to indicate all fuel, i.e. combine LPG (liquified petroleum gas) with other fuel in the same sign, an example is shown below. If no LPG is available then an ordinary fuel symbol should be used as shown above.

This services sign is space efficient because all symbols are the same size,
and unnecessary information is removed (fuel price for example just takes up space).
Next service station is shown in the supplementary plate.

Services ahead sign metricated and the units corrected (left);
Recommended wholly symbolic version of the same sign (right).

There is no reason to use a wordy sign for "end of motorway regulations" (left),
the symbolic version (right) should be used in all cases.

Suggested symbolic replacements for "No services on motorway" sign.
I believe that every motorway should have a service station, and I have not seen
"No services on motorway" on any motorway near where I used to live.

And finally regarding services signs, in Know Your Traffic Signs booklet, there are example of services signs (non-primary route) which are not 24 hour on page 103, for lorries only and where lorries are prohibited on page 104, and other services signs as well.  In all cases, it is recommended to use the graphical scheme shown in this article which will save space.  "Not 24 hour" should be replaced by the time it operates (e.g. "06:00-00:00"), or all services can be 24 hour as standard.  On the sign for services for lorries only, the words "Lorries only" are superfluous, ideally the sign should make it clear that it is for lorries only symbolically, without the need for any words.  Making all services suitable for all vehicles and 24 hour would simplify the signs.

Adding the motorway symbol to other signs (optional)

On various (non-motorway) signs, such as route confirmation signs, and exit signs (for example), motorways can appear.  It is worth considering whether to include the motorway symbol before motorway names, to make it clear that this is a motorway, not to state thatthat motorway regulations start (there is already a specific sign for that).  In continental Europe, it is common to put the motorway symbol next to the motorway name.  This is because motorway has different translations in different languges, and not all countries use the blue colour for motorways (some use green).  In addition, M is language specific as it abbreviates motorway just as A abbreviates Autoroute, Autobahn, etc. (although in Germany they use a specific symbol for Autobahn numbers, but there is no need to do something similar for the UK).

Motorway symbol incorporated next to motorway number for a primary
route exit sign (left), and a primary route confirmation sign (right)

Similarly for "All directions" and "Other directions" it is worth considering including symbols (and/or restrictions) if for example an airport and motorway can be reached in other directions.  Symbols can still also be omitted for "All directions" or "Other directions".

All directions, including to motorway and airport. The motorway symbol would only
need to appear if the motorway is close and reachable by following "All directions".


Once again it is worth re-iterating that non-British road users could be using British roads.

European route numbers on UK signs?

A European route number (e.g. E30) identifies a road on the International E-Road Network, in the same way that national route identifiers (e.g. M4 and A33 in the UK) identify a road in a country.  The International E-Road Network It started out as part of a UN initiative to improve international cross-border transport, nothing to do with the EU or the Council of Europe, and similar road networks exist on other continents too - the Asian Highway Network, the Pan-American Highway, and the Trans-African Highway Network. Roads on the International E-Road Network have European route numbers. The UK is the only country geographically in Europe which does not signpost European route numbers at all within its borders.

In my opinion, it is only worth including the European route numbers as well as the motorway or primary/non-primary route number on route confirmation signs for information purposes, if this was to be introduced. However, including European route numbers on other signs as well as national route identifiers (on signs such as exit signs or direction signs) could lead to clutter. It is better to use the existing national route numbers to plan a journey.

European route numbers are already used alongside national route numbers.  It is also possible to use european route numbers in place of existing motorway and primary route numbers only if applicable (and national route numbers otherwise), or to integrate fully into the European route numbering system, but I don't believe that either are necessary or important, and I think they involve more change than is necessary.

As a result, I believe it is worth considering including European route numbers on route confirmation signs for information purposes only. Below are the metricated route confirmation signs for motorway and primary route, with the European route number added:

European route numbers incorporated onto route confirmation signs
for motorway (left) and primary route (right)

Acknowledgements

Copyrights have been acknowledged in the images themselves, the original source of the copyrighted artwork (all covered by a copyright waiver) is the Know Your Traffic Signs booklet. All other images were created by the author and are licensed under CC-BY-SA.

14 comments so far. What are your thoughts?

  1. Some great suggestions. I think it is a great idea to get rid of the wordy signs but think there would be opposition to this. It would mean more to learn in the highway code and the transition period while people get used to it could cause issues. I still feel it would be the right thing to do but as we can see with whole metrication debate itself people do not like change!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It would be fantastic to be rid of wordy signs! It causes a lot of confusion among non-English speaking drivers with all the technical terms used, but are your propositions compatible with the Vienna convention on road signs and signals? Your propositions are just a "draft", but they wouldn't be easily readable, observing from the colours.

    Just my 2p. Metric looks excellent on the roads, by the way. It would be particularly good on Welsh road signs which need to be bilingual, and end up being enormous for things like yards and all those wordy messages! That's why symbols need to be used instead of prose. Many good ideas, here!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you both for your comments. Glad you both like my suggestions.

    It could be possible for there to be opposition to replacing wordy signs with the symbolic equivalents, but I think that there would be only a handful opposed. One would expect the vast majority to be happy to have unnecessary clutter removed.

    It is true that whether there are updates, or new signs (including getting rid of wordy signs and going metric), the Highway Code, the Traffic Signs Manual, and other books would need updating, and new signs would need to be learnt.

    We already knew this but if there was any opposition to removing wordy signs, then this can be overcome if the public are explained the changes properly and well in advance of any changeover, for metricating road signs and removing or replacing wordy signs.

    With my designs, I was aiming for the new designs to conform to the Vienna convention on road signs and signals. I am also strongly in favour of the UK not only signing and ratifying, but most importantly implementing the Vienna convention fully.

    My designs are indeed drafts. We can be sure that further refinements can make them more readable (although I don't personally see anything wrong with the colours as such). Readability at a glance, and therefore safety, is the most important thing.

    It will be a great day indeed once all signs are fully symbolic and metric (as well as implementing the Vienna Convention fully), as road users will benefit greatly.

    ReplyDelete
  4. First, I can't see any advantage of adding a choice of two 'motorway junction' symbols, given that they are completely redundant, and your whole rationale is to reduce clutter and complexity.
    A number in a black box means 'motorway junction number', you don't need another symbol alongside to repeat that. And if the road number signed off is a motorway, it's patently obvious that it's a motorway–motorway junction.

    The gantry signs with a single large blue panel and destinations, road numbers and arrows tacked on with a scattergun approach is not as easy to read and understand as the current system, it requires far more interpretation and inference.

    The inclusion of the 'motorway' symbol on distant signs is completely wrong. The sign means 'start of motorway restrictions' (which you clearly know, given that you want to use the 'end of motorway restrictions' pictogram to replace worded signs). So including the motorway symbol at a point that is not the start of motorway restrictions is indefensible, and adds nothing to comprehension or meaning.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't see the point in using the simple or complex motorway junction symbols. If the junction is well signed is shouldn't matter to the driver whether it is simple or complex.

    I'd also like to say that your 'no hard shoulder sign' would be incomprehensible to both English speakers and otherwise.

    And as for some of those gantry signs, they'd have Jock Kinnier turning in his grave.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Just some thoughts from myself...

    I'm all for metric, but I don't like the tiny 'km' listed about the numbers on the distance signs. Simply, I'd stick it after the number ie '10km'.

    Not sure what purpose junction symbols serve or why a distinction has to be made between a standard junction and a motorway intersection.

    I don't see any big problem with the exisiting exit signs. They're clear enough.

    Wordy signs are not ideal and I agree, should be avoided if a simple image can convey the same messge. However, the UK isn't like America and we do use symbols if possible. The examples you give are hard to describe in images, as you actually demonstrate. Neither of your alternative images are obvious.

    The motorway symbol is a handy little thing, I agree. Using the crossed out version for services though is problematic as the sign apparently means 'End of Motorway' not 'End of Motorway Regulations' though I don't see why it can't mean that.

    I find E numbers pointless in a British Isles context and see little benefit in their implementation. Wanting them implemented just for pro-EU reasons is not the right way to go about it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Gareth Parr - Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Those are very good points you have made.

    Yes I now also think that we can leave the motorway exit sign design as it is. I had thought that metrication would be an ideal time to see if alternative designs could be considered, maybe they are not needed.

    Using km as the same size as the numbers is not a bad thing, certainly makes it more readable - the smaller version was only done as a space saving measure in these drafts. I don't mind whether km appears above all the numbers or alongside each number.

    You are right, it wasn't easy trying to come up with a symbolic way of saying "Services 32 km", but I think symbols like petrol, food etc are important elements. That said I still think it is worth trying to see what symbols can be used, and if there are better symbols, then we can consider those.

    As well as this, one of the previous commenters (Anonymous on 26 October 2010) has also made a very good point when he said the signs are hard to read, especially on the revised services signs - I have a feeling the graphics don't display well in low resolutions (or maybe the colours are not exact).

    The E-numbers thing was a question I decided to pose, whether we should consider it. Having thought about this some more, I now think E-numbers, which are UN-administered, are entirely optional.

    Although I don't mind one way or the other whether they are used on route confirmation signs or not, I am not sure if the benefits justify them being added either, and I doubt E-numbers are required by the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals, certainly this has nothing to do with metrication either.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have to disagree on the basis of changing the motorway symbol, plus the junction and exit sign style. We pretty much invented this stuff, and the continental modifications are either purely cosmetic, or less clear. The motorway sign with an off-arrow is quite inflexible, whereas the double unhooked-arrow type can be easily modified to symbolically represent the actual layout of the junction; see it altered to a right-angle on the notoriously sharp J3 of the M50, or a "droopy" U-turn type in some areas to show that you turn 180 degrees on a swooping off-slip to reach a dumbell interchange that the motorway passes under either as or before the sliproad begins.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unfortunately there is no way of editing my comments on 22nd June 2011. I have thought about the E-numbers some more, and I now support it, because I can now see the benefits. It doesn't look useful at first sight but one only really notices the benefits if one drives through two or more countries.

    It is very useful if one has to do long journeys between 2 or more countries. One would only have to remember the "E30" rather than the multitude of motorways, expressways, dual carriageways (and sometimes single carriageways). I found this out when driving from Antibes to Barcelona in September. So I can now see the benefit of E-numbers where journeys go from or through the UK to one or more countries.

    Where the E-number is purely inside the UK, I agree that there is not much benefit, if any at all, of introducing it them this case.

    One needs to be careful, E-numbers (and their equivalents on other continents) are actually administered by the UN is not to do with the EU.

    ReplyDelete
  10. E-roads not E-numbers, sorry. What a shame I can't go back and edit comments.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Why is "Bristol" more useful than "The WEST"? Rather a bold statement don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  12. With the junction to the A34, how about making it inside a green rectangle and with yellow letters, the standard for A roads, but with the rest of the sign blue. A similar sort of idea is used in the Netherlands, http://www.designworkplan.com/wp-content/rijkswaterstaat-highwaysigns-ralfherrmann.jpg, where red rectangles are motorway routes and yellow rectangles are provincial highways.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It would be worth considering making an expressroad, IE for the UK, dual carriageways that in many case are like motorways, use blue road signs rather than green or white ones. It makes it more clear what kind of road you are on.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Some great ideas here, all of which bring Britain more in line with the rest of Europe and, thus, easier to navigate for drivers unfamiliar with British signage.

    I'm a great fan of the large one-piece direction sign. Being from Germany, it's instantly recognisable what it's trying to tell me, whereas the UK's current direction signs look incomprehensible to me at first sight and only serve their purpose after having got used to them. For a road sign, having to get used to it first before understanding it is definitely no good. I'm glad the Dutch now apply German style motorway signage, and they made it even easier to read. I'd definitely take them as an example.

    Another thing about british motorway signs that leaves me shaking my head at times is the font. There are better fonts on the market today than Motorway. Clearview from the US and Tern from Austria come to mind.

    Here's an example of Tern:
    http://www.fuerboeck.at/typo3temp/pics/3b4f36056b.jpg

    You'll find some great suggestions for Clearview at the bottom of the gallery:
    http://www.sabre-roads.org.uk/wiki/index.php?title=Gallery:M4_(Republic_of_Ireland)

    Here are some more suggestions for Ireland in Clearview that can be adapted for the UK:
    http://www.boards.ie/b/thread/2056102302/5?

    ReplyDelete

You can use some HTML tags, for example:
<a href="example.url.com">Example link</a> <b>...</b>