InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Researchresultsfor
UNECEExpertGrouponRoadSignsandSignalsbyT.Ben-BassatandM.Pronin15-16Feb.2018,Geneva,Switzerland
PROJECTTEAMT.Ben-BassatandD.Shinar,ManagersR.Almqvist,J.Caird,R.Dewar,E.Lehtonen,I.Maasalo,M.Pronin,P.Salmon,S.Simmons,M.Sinclair,H.Summala,L.Zakowska
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
JustificationfortheStudy
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² Cross-borderhazards
² Theissueofcomprehensionlevelofroadsignsusedindifferentcountriesiscritical.
² Driverslicensedinonecountrymayrentacaranddriveitinalmostanyothercountry,withsignsthatmaybeverydifferentfromthosetheyarefamiliarwith.
² TheexampleofNewZealand:Thiscountryhasarelativelyhighnumberoffatalcrashesinvolvingforeigndrivers.TheTransportAgencyattributesthecausetounfamiliarroaddesignandlayout,unfamiliarroadsigns,anddistractionbyscenery.Thisputsbothforeignnationalsandthelocalpopulationatrisk.
² Evenwhenforeigndriversrentingcarsreceiveabookletshowinglocalsigns,theymayreactbasedonthesignstheyhavebeenaccustomedtofollowingforyearswhenaninstantdecisionisrequired.
2
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Coverphoto:Courtesyof©M.Mongenet,PanneauxAB2etM7,D12,Viuz-en-Sallaz,HauteSavoie,France,2017.
Cross-BorderHazards
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.3
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
CourtesyofUNWorldTourismOrganization,AnnualReport,2016.
Cross-BorderHazards
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
Xx
4
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
CourtesyofUNWorldTourismOrganization,AnnualReport,2016.
² Notalltouristsrentacaroramotorcycle.Somearecyclistsandallarepedestrians.Unfamiliarroadsignsmayconfuseallroadusercategories.
² Thesenumbersdonotincludecommercialand“drive-through”drivers.
HistoryofCross-BorderRoadSignResearch
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² Shinar,Dewar,Summala,andZakowska(2003)comparedsigncomprehensionofdriversinCanada,Finland,Israel,andPoland:
² Thisresearch,begunin1996andlasting7years,wasthefirstattempttoresearchsymbolicroadsignsonabroadinternationalbasis.
² Theyfoundlargedifferencesamongsignsintheircomprehensionbythedriverstested.
² Ineachcountry,localroadsignswereunderstoodbymorepeoplethannon–localsignswere.
² Basedonthestudyresults,theauthorsconcluded15yearsago:“Aninternationalcommittee…shouldbereestablishedtoevaluatebothcurrentsignsindifferentcountriesandproposednewsigns.”
² Thecurrentstudyisacontinuationandamplificationofthisearlier
research.
5
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
WhatIsanErgonomicallyDesignedSign?
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² Ergonomicdesignisafielddealingwithadjustingproductstopromotesafetyandefficiencyforthebenefitofpotentialusers.
² Ben-BassatandShinar(2006):² Compatibility– Thecorrespondencebetweenthesignandthemessageit
represents.² Standardization– Theextenttowhichthecodesusedfordifferenttraitslike
colorandshapeareconsistentforallsigns.² Familiarity– Thefrequencyofthesignontheroad.
² Thestandardizationandcompatibilityprinciplesaresignificantissueswhenaddressingtheproblemofnon-localdriverswhoareunfamiliarwithlocalsigns.
² Inarecentstudy(inpress),Dr.Ben-Bassatfoundthatergonomicallydesignedunfamiliarroadsigns(highcompliancewithCompatibilityprinciple)aresignificantlymoreunderstandableandmoreeasilylearnedthannon-ergonomicsigns.
6
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
StudyGoals
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
Evaluate road sign designs based on the signs' compliance
with 3 ergonomic guidelines
Conduct international comprehension research
Offer alternative designs for misunderstood road signs
7
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Methodology
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² 1)Signselection² Expertsfrom8countriesproposedConventionalsignsfortestingwithsuggestions
addedfromtheUNECEExpertGrouponRoadSignsandSignals.² ThousandsofsignswerereviewedtofindAlternativestocomparewithConventional
signs.Whennoviableexistingsignswerefound,originalsignsweredesigned.
² 2)PilotStudy² Goal:Refinestudymethodologytoensureparticipantsunderstandtheinstructionsand
toensuregoodoperationofcomputertestsystem.(Minoradjustmentsweremade.)
² 3)ExpertsEvaluationStudy² Goal:FindAlternativedesignsthatergonomicallyratesignificantlybetterthan
Conventionalsigns.² 99signsratedby27humanfactorsandergonomicsfrom10countries:Australia,
Austria,Brazil,Canada,Finland,Israel,Poland,Spain,SouthAfrica,andtheUSA.² The99signsconsistof31Conventionalsigns,eachwith1-3Alternatives.² Methodology:Ratesignsforcompliancewitheachofthe3ergonomicprinciples.² Statisticalanalysis:ResultstestedusingananalysisofvarianceacrossAlternatives,
basedontheGEEmodelingtechnique,whichconsidersAlternativedesignsasrepeatedmeasureswithinrespondents.
² Results:For19outof31signs,anAlternativedesignwasratedassignificantlybetterthantheConventionalsignwiththesamemeaning.
8
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Methodology
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² 4)MainStudy–DriverComprehensionandReactionTime
² 7seniorresearchersfrom5countriestookpartintheMainStudy.² 56signsweretested–24Conventionalsignsand32Alternatives.² Participantsweredividedinto3groups:
Novicedrivers:Upto1yearofdrivingexperience.Experienceddrivers:>5yearsofdrivingexperienceandupto55yearsold.Olderdrivers:65+yearsold.
² Datacollectionlastedmorethan18months.² Tableofsamplefrequencies:
9
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Country Group1 Group1 Group3 Total
Canada 8 81 16 105
Israel 54 72 48 174
SAfrica 48 50 41 139
Finland 50 50 50 150
Poland 101 107 92 300
Total 261 360 247 868
Numberofresponses:450fromCPcountriesand418fromnon-CPcountries
Non-CP
CP
Methodology
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² 4)MainStudy–DriverComprehensionandReactionTime
² Goal:DeterminewhetherdriversbetterunderstandaConventionalsignoroneofitsAlternatives.
² Aninternet-basedquestionnairecreatedbyaprofessionalsurveycompanybasedonaquestionnairedesignedbytheteam.
² Equipmenttobeusedstandardizedamongallresearchers.² Demographicquestionsandopen-endedresponsescomprehensionquestionnaire,i.e.,
nomultiplechoice.² Instructionsandquestionsback-translatedfromEnglishintolocallanguages.² Divisionofthe56signstobetestedinto2equalsetswiththeConventionalsigninone
setandatleastoneAlternativesignintheothersetsoeachparticipanttested28signs(ConventionalorAlternativesignfromeachmeaning)randomlypresented,i.e.,eachparticipantsawthesignsinadifferentorder.
² Experimentinpersonasaone-on-onesurveywithnopromptingfromexperimenters.² Experimentbeganwith2easypracticesignsnottobecountedintheresults.² Signspresentedonawhitebackgroundwithoutdrivingcontext.² Participants’oralresponsestypedbyexperimentersduringtheexperiment.² Bothcomprehensionlevelandcomprehensionresponsetime(inseconds)tested.
10
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Analysis
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² 4)MainStudy–DriverComprehensionandReactionTime
² Datacoding:² Oralresponsescodedinto1of4categoriesofaccuracy:
² Correctandcompleteresponse(codedas+2)² Partiallycorrectresponse(codedas+1)² Incorrectresponse(codedas0)² Oppositeofthetruesignmeaning(codedas-2)
² Indexofpossibleresponsescreatedtoensurecoderconsistency.² Oralresponsesblind-codedbyseveralcodersinoneormorelocallanguagesand
translatedintoEnglishforadditionalcodingandcomparisonofcodingdifferences.² Extensivediscussionsheldtodeterminehowtocodeunusualresponses.
² ResponseTime(RT):² Measuredfromthetimeasignappearedonthescreenuntilparticipantindicated
comprehensionbyhittingthecomputerspacebarkey.² Note:Thisstudyandpreviousstudiesprovedthatreactiontimeforopposite
wronganswersislowerthanforordinarywronganswers.Thisindicatesmoreconfidenceintheoppositeanswersandthereforemoreprobabilitytoactquicklyinahazardousway.
11
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Analysis
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² 4)MainStudy–DriverComprehensionandReactionTime
² Statisticalanalysis:² Comprehensionaccuracyprobabilityanalyzedusing2models:
² Abinarylogisticmodel,whichcombinedcategoriesindicatingwronganswers(-2,0à0)andcategoriesindicatingcorrectanswers(1,2à1);and
² Anordinallogisticmodel,whichincludedthefullscaleofcodingcategoriesandestimatesoftheprobabilitytoappearinonecategoryvs.theother.
² RTtestedusingGEEmodel.
12
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
WhenaConventionalsignhadmorethanoneAlternative,meancodinggradeswerecomparedforeachpairofsigns.
Forexample:
RatingsofSigns
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.13
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
LevelofComprehension Interpretation
80-100% Excellent
60-79% Good
40-59% Fair
0-39% Verylow
ReactionTime(inseconds) Interpretation
0.0-3.9 Excellent
4.0-5.5 Good
5.6-7.0 Fair
>7.0 Verylong
Ratingcategoriesarearbitrary.Ontheroad3.9secondsisnotexcellent,butitmaybeinalabtest
whenparticipantstaketheirtimetoconsidertheiranswers.
Unlessstatedotherwise,comprehensionwillbefull+partial.
EndofDividedTwo-wayRoad(NoLaneLoss)
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.14
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1betterthanSign2.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Merginglanes.Bothsigns:Roaddivides(symbolinterpretedfromtopdown).² SymbolsofAustralia(Sign1)andCanadaareusedinmanycountries,bothCPandnon-CP.² TheAustralianandCanadiansymbolshavenoworldwideharmonizeddefinition.Theymayormaynotindicatereductioninnumberof
lanes(mergerequiredornomerge).TheAustraliansymbolisusedinothercountriesonone-wayroadsand/orontwo-wayroads.² MostcountriesusespecificwarningsignsforEndofDividedRoad.AlmostasmanyusewarningsignsforStartofDividedRoad.² Recommendations:ConventionshouldaddresshowtoindicateEndofDividedRoad.AsignfromsectionGmayprovidethemost
informationinonesignwithoutcompromisinglegibility.G,11csuggeststheConventionintendsGsignstobeusedforthispurpose.However,therightwaytofindthebestpossiblesignistotestmoresignsforcomprehension,RT,andlegibility.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Good
CP Verylow VerylowNon-CP Verylow Verylow
CP Verylow Verylow
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Not
incode
Not
incode
Not
incode
Defineddifferently:endofobstruction,suchastrafficislandorroadworkbarrier
1
2
ExampleofComparisonbyLengthofDriverExperienceandAge
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.15
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMPREHENSION REACTIONTIMENon-CP CP GROUP TotalforAllCountries
Good Fair Upto1yearofexperience Good
Fair Fair 5years+ofexperience Good
Fair Verylow Overage65 Verylong
COMMENTS² Ingeneral,olderdrivershavelowercomprehensionprobabilityandsignificantlyhigherreactiontimesthanyoungandmiddle-aged
drivers.Thisisconsistentwithpreviousstudiesanditsimplicationforroadsafetyisdisturbing.² Asthecolorcodingofthetablecellsillustrates,eachsignmustbeexaminedindividuallytodeterminewhichgroupofdriversinwhich
countryhasthebestandworstcomprehensionandRT.² Thisextraanalysisisprovidedforthese2signsonly.
COMPREHENSION REACTIONTIMENon-CP CP GROUP TotalforAllCountries
Fair Verylow Upto1yearofexperience Verylong
VeryLow Verylow 5years+ofexperience FairVeryLow Verylow Overage65 Verylong
OtherConsiderations
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.16
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
EndofDividedTwo-wayRoad(LaneLossandNoLaneLoss)
SAfrica UAE Pakistan India Philippines Iran/Kuwait Vietnam
Definition:Endoftrafficobstruction
Definition:Endofmedian(dividedroad) Nigeria
ExampleofDifferentMeanings
Non-CP CPs
Convention ExampleofDifferentMeanings
G,11c Intention? UK Ireland Australia
Indicationofhowthisconceptmaybedesigned
Alwaysmerge Sometimesmerge
Nevermerge
The3signsaboveillustratetheneedtoexaminesigndefinitions.Harmonizedsymbolsdonotguaranteethesamedefinition.
Differentdefinitionsmayendangerforeignroadusersand,byextension,thelocalpopulationtoo.
Manynon-CPsusethesymbolsofPakistan,India,orIranonwarningsigns,withdifferingdefinitions
LevelCrossingWithoutBarrier
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.17
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs1and2areessentiallythesame.² MainWrongResponses:Nonesignificant.² TheEG’spreliminarydecisionwastoretainSign1untildatafromthisstudy(theIRSCEP)becameavailable.² TheIRSCEPdidnotinitiallyintendtotestSign1becauseitisagoodsign.TestingwasconductedattheEG’srequest.² TheIRSCEPdidnottestGermany’smoderntrainsymbolbecauseitmaybemistakenforatram.² Recommendations:Sign1meetsthecriteriaforretention.However,iftheEGpreferstochangethesymbol,abetterchoicewould
be,pendingcomprehensionandlegibilitytesting,asideviewofamoderntrain.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Good
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Good
CP Excellent Excellent
1
2
Pro ² Asoneoftheworld’sbestunderstoodsigns,changeisnotjustified.
² Sideviewreflectsperspectiveseenbysafedrivers.² IfMr.Egger’ssymbolischosentoreplaceA,25,
retainingthissignisessential.
Con ² UKresearcherssuggestedsomedriversmayassumetrainisslow.
Pro ² WouldbeconsistentwithEG’sgoaltomodernizemostsignsymbols.
² 8CPshaveadoptedamoderntrainsymbol.² Choosingthisparticularsymbolwouldacknowledge
Africa’scontributiontosignage.
Con ² Viewoftrainseenbyirresponsibledrivers.² Sign1maybemorelegible,butshouldbetested.
DoesSignA,26aSuggestaSlowTrain?
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.18
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Noparticipantssaidthecurrentsignstoodforslowtrain.² Afewparticipantsfromnon-CPcountriessaid“cargo”or“steamengine.”Somecargotrainsandsteamtrainsareveryfast,butelectric
trainsonaveragearefaster.Thestudydidnotuseprompting,sowewouldneedtoguessif“cargo”and“steamengine”relatetospeedintheirmindsandguessingisunscientific.
² Thepercentageofparticipantswhosaid“cargo”or“steamengine”doesnotappearlargeenoughtobesignificant.
Slow Cargo SteamEngine Slow Cargo SteamEngine
Canada 0 0 0 0 0 0
Israel 0 0 0 0 10 1
SAfrica 0 0 0 0 0 6
Finland 0 0 0 0 0 0
Poland 0 0 0 0 0 0
All >98%didnotusewordsthatmaybesuggestA,25astandsfora“slow”train
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Good Verylong
CP Good FairNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Excellent Good
Non-CP Excellent GoodCP Excellent Good
LevelCrossingwithLights
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.19
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Not
incode
Not
incode
Not
incode
Not
incode
Not
incode1
2
3
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs2and3areessentiallythesame.² MainWrongResponses:Nonesignificant.² AustraliasubmittedSign1fortesting.Lightssymbolnotusedintestcountries.² Additionalpanel2issimilartosymbolstyleusedintheUK.² Additionalpanel3isusedinRomaniaandSwitzerland.² SpainusessignA,17atowarnoflightsignalsatlevelcrossings.ThisisnottheConvention’sintendeduseforA,17a.² TheUKviewisthatwarningoflightsignalsismoreimportantthanwarningofautomaticbarriers.² Recommendations:Althoughadditionalspanels2and3arehighlycomprehensible,warningdriversofthepresenceoflightsignalsat
levelcrossingsisunnecessary.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Fair
CP Good GoodNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Excellent GoodNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Excellent Good
LevelCrossingwithBarrier
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.20
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs2and3areessentiallythesameoverall,withCPcomprehensionsomewhathigherforSign3.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Fence.Sign3:Notrains(Canada,afew).² Sign2isfromChilewiththetracksmodifiedforimprovedlegibility.² Sign3wassubmittedtoolatefortestinginIsrael.² LowcomprehensionforSign1isconsistentwithresultsfromotherstudies.² Recommendations:Sign1shouldbedeletedandnotreplacedorreplacedusingthesymbolinSign2orSign3.Germanyandallother
CPsshouldhaveacommondefinitionforA,26a(seeSlide23).
1
2
3
SignsA,25andA,26a:ChoicesfortheEG
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.21
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
² Nochange² Onesign(trainsymbol)forbothguardedandunguardedlevelcrossings
² Germanyandmanynon-CPsuseonesignforboth
² Twotrainsymbolsforslowcargotrainandfastpassengertrains² Twonon-CPshave2warningsignswithdifferenttrainsymbols–Notrecommended
² Revisedsteamenginesymbolforimprovedlegibility² ModerntrainsymbolforA,26a;ifyes,whichone?
² Symbolwithfrontorsideviewoftrain² Mr.Egger,theEG’slegibilityexpert,hasstatedthat8isthebestsideviewofthetrainthathehasencountered
² Symbolwithorwithoutapantograph(Doespantographsuggestatram?)² InGermany,10wouldpossiblynotbeconfusedwithatramwarningbecauseasectionAsignisnotusedfor
trams;instead,A,32ispairedwithanadditionalpanel
² NewguardedsymbolforA,25;ifyes,whichone?² If3,4,or5chosenastheguardedsymbol,then7shouldbecometheunguardedsymbol.
Signimagesareonnextslide
SignsA,25andA,26a:ChoicesfortheEG
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.22
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
1 2
6 7
8
543
9
Testedsignsorsymbolswere1,2,3,6,and12.
121110
Convention
Convention
Chile’ssymbol,modified Egger EggerEgger
Egger
Switzerland,proposed Iran SouthernAfrica&NigeriaNorway&Ukraine,informativesignmodified
Bosnia&Herzegovina,Croatia,Germany,Luxembourg,Macedonia,Serbia
Example
AllTrains AllTrains
Exampleof2oftheTypesofDisharmonization
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.23
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Differentsymbolforsamemeaning
SamesymbolanddifferentmeaningGermany Bosnia&Herzegovina,Croatia,(Iran),
Luxembourg,Macedonia,Serbia
Example
Guarded&UnguardedLevelCrossing
UnguardedLevelCrossing
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylow
CP Good GoodNon-CP Fair Fair
CP Verylow FairNon-CP Verylow Fair
CP Verylow Good
RoadClosedinBothDirections
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.24
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:CPunderstandingwasbarelygood;combinednon-CP/CPresponsesequalsverylow
comprehension.Poland’sunderstandingwasgoodandRTexcellent,whileFinland’sunderstandingwasfairandRTverylong.Israel’sunderstandingwasbetterthanFinland’s,butIsrael’sRTwasmuchlongerthanFinland’s.DifferenceinsigncolorandborderwidthmayexplaintheresultsfromFinland.
² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Donotknow.Sign2:Barrierahead;roadblock;construction.Sign3:Notwo-waytrafficor“endof”two-waytraffic;one-waystreet.
² Sign2isoriginal.Sign3isusedinIndiaandotherAsiancountries.² LowcomprehensionforSign1isconsistentwithresultsfrommanyotherstudies.² CountriesapplySign1totheentireroadand,onoverheadgantries(permanent)orontheroadbed(temporary),toonesideofthe
road,toonelane,ortotheroad’sshoulder.TheConventionpermitstheseapplications.² ManyAfricancountriesusethesamesign(ConventionsignC,1a)forNoEntryandforRoadClosedinBothDirections.
1
2
3
SouthAfrica’sSignageforRoadClosedinBothDirections
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.25
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Courtesyof©WesternCapeGovernment,SouthAfrica,2017.Photocropped.
Courtesyof©DurbanUniversityofTechnology,SouthAfrica,2014.Photocropped.
COMMENTS² Recommendations:Inviewofthesign’spoorunderstanding,theEGshoulddecidewhetherallcurrentapplicationsaresuitablefor
Sign1.WhenSign1appliestotheentireroadorisplaceontheroadbed,itshouldbemountedonabarrier.TheIRSCEPusedastrictdefinitionforSign2.ItscomprehensionforallstudycountriescombinedwassignificantlyhigherthancomprehensionforSign1.Therefore,Sign2maydeservefurtherstudy.TheEGshouldalsoquestionwhetheronesignispossibleforbothNoEntryandRoadClosedinBothDirections.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Good Excellent
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Fair Good
CP Excellent Excellent
NoEntryforPedestrians
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.26
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Finland’scomprehensionwassignificantlyhigherthanPoland’s.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Nocrossing(PolandandCanada).Signs1&2:Endofnopedestrians(Poland).Sign2:Nochildrenpermitted.² ThereasonforPoland’swrongresponseisclear,butnotforCanada’s.² IRSCEP’spreviousstudy(1996-2003)recorded93%comprehensionforSign1.² Recommendations:ThoughPoland’ssignismore“logical”andmorelikemanyNoTrespassingsignsatrailways,Sign1shouldberetained.Itis
generallyunderstoodandinwidespreaduse.AsignificantnumberofPolishparticipantsassumedthebarmeant“endof,”thisconcernistobeconsideredifabarisaddedtoprohibitionsigns.Sign2’swrongresponseisalsodisturbingandmayhaveimplicationsforConventionsignD,5,whosecomprehensionshouldbetested.D,5’ssymbolisusedincreasinglyonwarningsignstomeanpedestrianswalkingalongtheroad,thoughthesymbol’suseonwarningsignsislessproblematicintermsofcomprehension.Nevertheless,theneedfor2pedestriansymbolsisquestionable.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
1
2
Courtesyof©H.Hammer,Baumkirchen,Austria,2012.
NoMotorcycles
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.27
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Finland’sandPoland’scomprehensionwereveryhighandaboutthesameforSign1.Poland’scomprehension
wasnearlyashighforSign2,butFinland’scomprehensionwasmuchlowerandinthefaircategory.AlthoughSign2isIsrael’ssign,IsraelicomprehensionofSign1wasexcellentwhilecomprehensionofSign2wasfair.Despitetheabsenceofbarsonprohibitionsignsintheircountries,PolandandIsraelhadshorterRTsforSign1thanforSign2.
² MainWrongResponses:Sign2:Motorcyclelane;motorcyclespermitted;warningofmotorcyclesonroad.Sign2:Endofnomotorcycles(Poland,afew).
² IRSCEP’spreviousstudy(1996-2003)recorded64%comprehensionforSign2.² Recommendations:TheassumptionbyaportionofPolishparticipants,forallprohibitionsignswithbarstested(4signswithsinglebarsand1sign
withdoublebars),thatthebarmeans“endofprohibition”leadstothedangerousinterpretationofsignsashavingtheiroppositemeaning.Thisrevealsthehazardofallowing2separatesystems(barandnobar)todeliverthesamemessage.AbarshouldneverthelessbeusedonprohibitionsignsbecauseitconsiderablyenhancescomprehensionandsignificantlyreducesRT.However,becauseabarreducesasign’slegibility,theissueofcomprehensionvs.legibilitymustbeconsideredbeforemakingadecision.ThebestsolutionisacompromisethattheConventioncurrentlyallows:placingthebarbehindthesymbol.TheConventionalsoallowsplacementinfrontofthesymbol.These2optionsshouldberetained,withthepreferredoptionbeingthebarbehindthesymbol.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Excellent
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Verylow Good
CP Good Excellent
1
2
ComprehensionVs.Legibility
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² In1988Dr.Dewarpublishedasurveyof153roadsignexpertsandpracticingtrafficengineersfromAustralia,NewZealand,Canada,andtheUSAontheimportanceof6criteriainevaluatingdesignsymbols.Comprehensionwasratedthehighest,abovelegibilityandothercriteriafor,onaverage,alltypesofsigns:warning,regulatory,andinformative.
² Forallprohibitionsignswithbarsinthestudy,thepresenceofabar,whetherbehindorinfrontofthesymbol,wasunderstoodwithextremelyhighcomprehensionasaprohibition.Thatis,theconceptofprohibitionwasunderstoodwhetherornotthesymbolwasidentifiedcorrectly.
² AccordingtoDr.Shinar,thehumanmindcancompletethebarmoreeasilythancompletingthemorecomplexsymbol:“Myconclusionrestsonthewell-knownfindingsofGestaltPsychologyconcerningsomeveryrobustrulesofvisualperception.Amongtheserulesisonecalled'goodcontinuity,'whichstatesthatthehumanmindfillsintheblanksformissing(visual)databyassumingthatthereis'continuity'betweenthesegments.Forinstance,acirclemadeupofdotsisperceivedasacircleandnotasindividualdots.Themindassumesthatastraightline(e.g.,afence)thatisobscuredonsomesegmentsisstilltherebehindtheoccludingobjects(e.g.,peopleleaningonthefence).Incontrast,theindividualmarkingsofasymboldonotprovidethegoodcontinuityofastraightline;therefore,reconstructingitfromthepartialimageismoredifficultforthemind.”
² In2002Dr.Wogalterpublishedresearchon4typesofprohibitionbars.Differentresultswereobtainedwithdifferentsymbols,but,onaverage,comprehensionwas88%forbarsinfrontand100%forbarsbehindthesymbol.
² Thereare2typesofincomprehensionofasymbol:1)notunderstandingitsmeaningand2)notunderstandingitbecauseitisobscured.Placingthebarbehindthesymbolminimizesoreliminatesthesecondtypeofincomprehension:obscuration.
28
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Fair Excellent
CP Verylow ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Excellent
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Excellent
CP Excellent Excellent
CycleLaneorTrackOnly
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.29
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITY-MandatoryCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:ComprehensionwasextremelylowinPolandandIsrael;goodcomprehensioninCanadaledtoaverage
non-CPratingoffair.Finland’scomprehensionwasmuchbetterthanPoland’sandwasessentiallythesameasSouthAfrica’s.Sign3:Thebestcomprehendedsign,withalmostperfectunderstanding.
² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Cyclesprohibited.Signs2&3:Nonesignificant.² The3countrieswiththebetterunderstandingofSign1allhaveprohibitionsignswithbars.² Sign1isBrazil’smandatorysign.ThesamesignmodelisusedthroughoutLatinAmericaformandatorysignage.² IRSCEP’spreviousstudy(1996-2003)recorded89%comprehensionforSign2.Resultsfromthecurrentstudyaresimilar.² Recommendations:TheConventiondistinctionbetweenprohibitorysigns(redborder)thatmaynothavebarsandthesecondmandatorymodel
(redrim)istoosubtle.Inpractice,thesignsofeverycountryusingthesecondmandatorymodelhavethewideborderinsteadofthenarrowrim,whichmakesthesesignsindistinguishablefromprohibitionsignswithoutbars.Tocreatethegreatestdistinctionbetweenprohibitoryandmandatorysignage,theConventionshouldsanctiononlyonemandatorymodel:blueroundelwithwhitesymbol.
1
2
3
FAMILIARITY-ProhibitoryCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
CycleLaneorTrackOnly
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.30
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Thisslidehas4prohibitorysignsand4mandatorysigns.Candriversandcyclistscorrectlyidentifythem?
Areminder:ExcellentRTmeansshortRT.Whencombinedwithoppositeanswers,itindicatesdriverconfidenceintheoppositemeaningofthesign.ThisoccurredwithmostparticipantsforSign1anditrepresentsamajorhazard.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Fair Verylong
CP Fair FairNon-CP Good Fair
CP Excellent Excellent
Non-CP Fair VerylongCP Fair Verylong
GiveWayAhead
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.31
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Not
incode
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Comp² MainWrongResponses:Signs1&3:Sometypeofwarning;donotknow.Sign2:Nonesignificant.² Canada’ssignisusedwidelyintheWesternHemisphere.Itsshapeandcolorprovidemorevisualprominenceforagivewaysymbolwithawhite
groundthanatrianglewithawhitegrounddoes.Thisprominencemayraisecomprehension.Somecountriesreplacethearrowwiththedistance.² Recommendations:Sign1shouldbedeletedfromtheConvention.TheEGshouldconsiderwhetherSign3’ssymbolisacceptableasanalternative
forwarningmodelAb.Thiswouldrepresentpermittingregulatorysignsymbolsonwarningsigns,whichtheConventionalreadydoeswith3signs,A,20andA,21a/b.
1
2
3
OthersigntypeusedinWesternHemisphere
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Fair Verylong
CP Verylow FairNon-CP Excellent Good
CP Good Excellent
Non-CP Excellent ExcellentCP Excellent Excellent
Non-CP Excellent ExcellentCP Excellent Excellent
StopSignAhead
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.32
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Leastcomprehensible.Sign2:Poland’scomprehensionwasnotgood;theratingwasraisedby
Finland’shighercomprehension.Sign4:BestincomprehensionandRTdespitenotusedinthecountriestested.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Donotknow;tunnel.Sign2:Giveway(manyparticipants).Signs3&4:Nonesignificant.² Canada’ssignisusedwidelyintheWesternHemisphere.Somecountriesinscribethesigninthelocallanguageand/orreplacethearrowwiththe
distance.IrelandusesSign4withouttheinscription.Cyprususesasymbolontheadditionalpanel;withmodification,itmaybeworthtesting.² Recommendations:Sign1shouldbedeletedfromtheConvention.TheEGshouldconsiderreplacingSign2withSign3orSign4.OneEGmember
statedthatSign4wouldbehazardousiftheadditionalfelloffthesignpost.
1
4
3
2
OthersigntypeinWesternHemisphere Ireland
Cyprus
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Good Verylong
Non-CP Verylow FairCP Verylow Good
PriorityforLeftTurn
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.33
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Theverylongtimerequiredtointerpretthesignisanindicationofunacceptability.² MainWrongResponses:Signs1&2:Confusionaboutwhichroadshavepriority.² TheConventionpermitssignassemblies,suchasthecombinationtestedinSign1.Arelativelysimplecombinationwaschosenfortesting.Many
signassembliesseenontheroadhavemorecomplicatedsymbolswithgreaterpotentialtoconfusedrivers.ItmaybecontradictorythattheConventionpermitsindicationofpriorityatbendsandintersectionsbyattachingH,8additionalpanelstowarningsignsandalsopermitsnewA,19signstobecreatedbasedonroadlayout.Initially,SwedenwastheonlyCPtocreatealargenumberofA,19signs(21).Today,Estonia,Hungary,andVietnamhavemoreA,19signsthanaredisplayedintheConvention.
² Sign2isanoriginaldesignbasedontheConvention’sH,8symbol.² Recommendations:Additionalpanelsshouldamplifyasign’smessage,notcontradictit.Signassemblies,suchasSign1,shouldbereplacedby
specificA,19signs.ComprehensionofSign2istoolowforconsideration.ThesymboldesignusedinSwedenisalsousedbytheother3CPsandthisfavorsitsadoption.AlsotobeweighedisdepictionofminorroadsordrivewaysonA,1signsratherthanonadditionalpanelsbecausethesignassembliesleadtothesamecontradictionsthatoccurwithA,19sign.Newtrendsinsignagefavorconsolidationofsymbolsintoonepanel.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Not
incode
Not
incode
Not
incode
1
2 ExampleofoneofSweden’ssigns
PriorityforLeftTurn
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.34
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Courtesyof©Morgan,Belgium,2014.
Sweden’sprobablesignforthisintersection
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Fair
CP Good ExcellentNon-CP Good Good
CP Good GoodNon-CP Fair Verylong
CP Fair Fair
Crossroad
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.35
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYNATIONALPRIORITYRULE
Canada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
FAMILIARITYPRIORITYSTRAIGHTAHEAD
Canada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
1
3
2
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:ThebestCPcomprehension.Sign2:Thebestcomprehensionoverall.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Levelcrossing.Sign2:Hospital.Sign3:Mustdrivestraightahead.² Twodifferentconceptswerecombinedforthissigntest.² Sign1resemblesCanada’slevelcrossingsign(seeSlide17).ItexplainswhymanyCanadianparticipantsassumedthesignstoodforlevelcrossing,
butitdoesnotexplainwhysomeparticipantsfromtheothercountriesalsoanswered“levelcrossing.”² Recommendations:Asymbolreflectingtheroadlayoutistheoreticallytobepreferred.However,thehighpercentageofparticipantswho
interpretedSign2asrelatingtoahospital(orambulance)precludesitsrecommendation.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Good GoodNon-CP Good Verylong
CP Good Good
EndofPriorityRoad
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.36
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Poland’scomprehensionandRTareoutstanding.Finland’scomprehensionbarelymadethegood
categoryandFinland’sRTwas2.5timeslongerthanPoland’sRT.Sign2:BettercomprehensionoverallthanSign1resultingfrommuchbettercomprehensionfornon-CPs,butmuchlowercomprehensionforFinland(somewhat)andPoland(verysignificant).
² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Donotknow.Sign2:Endoftheroad;endofpublicroad.² Dr.SummalahasstudiedhazardsatintersectionsinFinlandandobserveddriversinmanyEuropeancountries.Heconsidersnon-comprehension
ofConventionsignB,4tobeoneofthegreatesthazardstodrivers.² IRSCEP’spreviousstudy(1996-2003)recorded~47%comprehensionforSign1.Thisisconsistentwithresultsfromotherstudies.² Poland’shighlevelofcomprehensionmaybeduetoitsunusualsignassemblyontheroad.ParticipantscorrectlyidentifiedSign1eventhoughthe
testdidnotcoupleSign1withthegivewaysign.(Duringtesting,Poland’sparticipantssawonlySign1andnotthesignassembly.)² TheinscriptioninaforeignlanguagedidnotassistFinlandorPolandinreachingorsurpassingtheircomprehensionofSign1.(SeealsoSlide43.)² Israel’slowcomprehensionwaspossiblyduetoaninscriptionnotinthealphabetofthenationallanguage.² Recommendations:Thoughsymbolicsignsarepreferabletoinscribedsigns,thesymbolsmustbecomprehensible.Amongnon-CPscountriesSign
1wasextremelylesscomprehensiblethanSign2.Sign1isproblematicthoughsoubiquitousinEuropethatresistanceistobeexpectedtoitsreplacement.Dr.Lehtonenstatesthatitisjustifiedtoreplaceanoldsignwithanewdesignthathasbeenevaluatedtobebetter.AnotherapproachmaybetorequireanadditionalpaneltoaccompanyallSign1installations.Testingisrequiredtodeterminewhattypeofsignagewouldbemostcomprehensible.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
1
2
Poland’sSolutiontoRaiseComprehensionofSignB,4
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.37
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Courtesyof©MunicipalOfficeinPakość,Poland,2017.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Good GoodNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Good Fair
PriorityforOncomingTraffic
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.38
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Comprehensioninall5countrieswaslowerthancomprehensionforSign2.Thedifferenceranged
fromslighttomajor(insignificanttosignificant).² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Widerlaneontheleft;two-waystreet;noovertaking.Sign2:Givewayahead.² Sign2isoriginal.² QuebechasnosignforYourPriority.² IRSCEP’spreviousstudy(1996-2003)recorded~57%comprehensionforSign1.Thisisconsistentwithresultsfromotherstudies.² Recommendations:Sign2shouldbeconsideredasareplacementforSign1.MoretestingmayalsobedonewithQuebec’ssignandNew
Zealand’ssignassembly.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Quebec
1
2
NewZealand’ssignassembly
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Excellent
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Excellent
CP Excellent Excellent
Roundabout
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.39
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs1&2:Almostequalexcellentcomprehensionacrossallcountries.² MainWrongResponses:Nonesignificant.² Asstudycontrols,2signs,onewithexpectedveryhighandonewithexpectedverylowlevelofcomprehension,werechosen.Thiswasthesign
expectedtobeeasytounderstand.² Ofparticularinterestwasthecomprehensibilityinacountrywheredrivingwasontheothersideoftheroadfromthesidedepictedonthesign.
Arrowdirectiondidnotconfuseparticipants.SouthAfricaperformedaswellastheothercountries.² Highlevelofcomprehensionforbothsignsisconsistentwithresultsfromotherstudies.² Recommendations:Thesesignsrequirenoalteration.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Left
1
2
Right RightRightRight
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Good
CP Excellent Excellent
StartofBuilt-upArea
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.40
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Almostnoonementionedlowerspeedlimit.Sign2:Thevastmajoritymentionedlowerspeedlimit.² MainWrongResponses:Nonesignificant.² Signs1and2areunderstoodwellevenincountriesthatdonothavethesign.² Recommendations:Sign1requiresnoalteration,butcommunitiesmustensureawarenessofthereducedspeedlimit(s)inbuilt-upareas.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
Notincode1
2
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Fair
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Good Fair
CP Excellent Good
EndofMaximumSpeedLimit
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.41
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Hugenumberofoppositeanswers(CanadaandSouthAfrica).² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Maximumspeedlimitis40;minimumspeedlimitis40.Sign2:Maximumspeedlimitis70andminimumis40.² Maximumspeedlimit:Istheword“limit”necessary?² Recommendations:Itwouldbemoredirecttoinstallsignsforthenewspeedlimit,asisdoneinCanada,SouthAfrica,andmostoftherestofthe
world.PostingSign1withoutpostingthenewspeedlimitplacesaburdenondriverstorecallthepreviousspeedlimit.Also,driversmayentersomeroadsfromadirectionwherethepreviousspeedlimitisnotobvious.Dr.LehtonenstatesthatSigndeservestobedeletedcompletely;heaskswhatisthepointofsayingthespeedlimitendswithoutsayingwhatisnext?PostingSign1withthenewspeedlimitsignnearbyisredundant.However,Sign1wouldstillneedtoberetainedforEndofZonesigns.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Newspeedlimitposted
Newspeedlimitposted
1
2
EndofMaximumSpeedLimit–Are2SignsNeeded?
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.42
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Courtesyof©M.Mongenet,Surl’autorouteA410,Haute-Savoie,France,2017.Photocropped.
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Excellent
CP Verylow ExcellentNon-CP Good Good
CP Excellent Excellent
MinimumSpeed
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.43
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Poland’scomprehension,althoughonlyfair,wasmuchhigherthanFinland’s.Sign2:Comprehension
wasexcellentinallcountriesexceptIsrael,whereitwasratedasgood.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Maximumspeedlimit;advisedspeed;ordertodriveat50km/h(manyinPoland).Sign2:Nonesignificant.² ManyFinnishparticipantsbelievedSign1stoodforadvisedspeedlimit,butonlyafewbelievedSign2stoodforadvisedspeedlimit.Dr.Lehtonen
believesFinland’scomprehensionwaslowbecauseFinlanddoesnotuseaminimumspeedlimitsignandmotorwayrampsoftenhaveadvisedspeedlimitsigns,whichresembleSigns1and2exceptforshape.AlthoughFinland’ssignismoresimilartoSign2,the“min”inscriptionledtoahighnumberofcorrectresponsespresumablybecauseminimuminFinnishisminimi.
² ForSign2,comprehensionwasalsohighinPoland,whereminimuminPolishisminimum,andinthemostlyEnglish-speakingnon-CPs(CanadaandSouthAfrica).ComprehensionwaslowestinIsrael,wherethealphabetisdifferentandminimumisמִינִימּום.Aninscriptionnotinthealphabetofthenationallanguagemayberesponsibleforthecomparativelylowercomprehension,similartotheresultfortheinscribedsignonSlide36whereIsraelicomprehensionwasalsothelowest.(ComprehensionandinscriptionsinaforeignlanguagearediscussedonSlides51and52.)
² AquestionraisedbyFinland’smany“advisedspeedlimit”responsesiswhethershapealoneisenoughtodistinguishdifferentsignmeanings.² LowlevelofcomprehensionofSign1isconsistentwithresultsfromotherstudies.² Recommendations:Manyyearsago,minimumspeedlimitsignsinEuropewereinscribed.Removingtheinscriptionsresultedinacleaner-looking
design,butitmayhaveloweredcomprehension.Reintroducinganinscriptionisworthconsidering.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
1
2 Finlandadvisedspeedlimit
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylong
Fair Verylow FairNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Excellent Excellent
TollAhead,StoppingRequired
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.44
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Verylowforallcountries.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Donotknow;donotenter;bordercrossing(Poland,afew).Sign2:Nonesignificant.² SeveralCPshavecreatedspecificinformativesignsfordifferenttypesoftolls;e.g.,Francehas6signs.² Sign2isanoriginaldesign.² Recommendations:ReplaceSign1.IftheEGprefersonegeneralsignfortolls,aninformativesignwithasymbolofaroadandpaymentoptions
wouldensuregoodcomprehension.Sign2isbasedonarecognizableConventionsign.However,SignE,5amaybetoospecificbecausenotalltollroadsaremotorwaysandbridgesandtunnelsmayhavetolls.IsraelandSwedenuseageneralroadsymbol.Sweden’ssymboldoesnotspecifycurrency,whichallowsthesamesymboltoapplytoall,butitmaynotbeunderstandablewithoutthehand.ItislikelythatallC,16signswillhavelowcomprehensionoutsidetheirimmediateregion.Replacingthesesignswithsymbolicsignsshouldbeconsidered.SomeofC,16’sotherusesareforcustoms,bordercontrol,policeandmilitarycheckpoints,ferryentrance,lightsignals,andtemporaryroadwayhazards.SeveralCPshavecreatedaninformativesignwithasymbolforcustoms.AfewCPsandmanynon-CPsuseawarningsignforferryentrance.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Not
incode
Not
incode
Sweden
France
1
2
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Good ExcellentNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Verylow Verylong
NoStopping
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.45
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Finland’scomprehensionwassignificantlybetterthanPoland’s.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Donotenter;donotknow.Sign2:Noparking;donotknow.² LowlevelofcomprehensionofSign1isconsistentwithresultsfromotherstudies.² Sign2isanoriginaldesignbyaEuropeanmemberoftheEG(notMr.Egger).² Recommendations:Sign1’sdesignisunfortunatebecauseitmaybereadasendofnoparking.Adoubleparallelbarslopingdownwardfromleft
torightmayhavebeenmore“logical”:onebarfornoparkingand2barsforthestrongerprohibitionofnoparkingandnostopping.Sign1issurprisinglynotaswellunderstoodasexpectedinCPscountriesandhardlyunderstoodinnon-CPcountries,butitissoubiquitousinEuropethatresistanceistobeexpectedtoitsreplacement.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
1
2Symbolwithpossiblybettermemorability
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Fair Verylong
CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Good Good
CP Good Excellent
Crosswind
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.46
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs1&2:Mostanswerswere“wind”ratherthan“crosswind”or“sidewind.”² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Airportnearby.Sign2:Slipperyroad;wateronroad.² Sign2isbasedonCentralAmerica’scrosswindwarningsign.² LowlevelofcomprehensionofSign1innon-CPsisconsistentwithresultsfromanotherstudyinChina.HighlevelofcomprehensioninCPsis
consistentwithresultsfromanotherstudyinDenmark.² Recommendations:Sign1,duetofamiliarity,isexpectedtobebetterunderstoodinEuropethanoutsideEurope.Sign2wasbetterunderstood,
onaverage,bymoredriversdespitenotbeingafamiliarsigninanyoftheircountries.Sign2isthebettersign,butthesymbolshouldberedesignedtoeraseanysuggestionofawaveofwater.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
1
2
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Good Fair
CP Good GoodNon-CP Good Fair
CP Good Good
EndofPavedRoad
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.47
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs1&2:Comprehensionwasessentiallythesameregardlessofsignmodel;CPRTwasbetterdespitethe
absenceofthesignsintheCPstested.² MainWrongResponses:Signs1&2:Rocksonroad.² SomeCPsuseConventionsignA,10(LooseGravel)forEndofPavedRoad,butotherCPsapplyA,10onlywhentheroadhasgravelforashort
distance(suchasatroadworks).² QuebecandSouthAfricauseA,10,butonlyfortemporaryconditions.² Recommendations:IftheEGpreferstodistinguishbetweenendofapavedroadleadingtoalongstretchofunpavedroadandashortsectionof
gravelroad,thenthesymbolinSigns1and2shouldbeaddedtotheConvention.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
Notincode
1
2
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Fair
CP Verylow GoodNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Good Good
CrashAhead(temporary)orHighRiskArea(permanent)
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.48
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
FAMILIARITYCRASHAHEAD
Canada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
Notincode
FAMILIARITYHIGHRISKAREA
Canada Poland
Israel
SAfrica
FinlandNotincode
1
2
COMMENTS
² Comprehension&RTComparison:Signs1&2:ComprehensionofSign2ismuchbetterthanSign1asageneralwarningofahighriskarea.EventhecountrieswithSign1’ssymbolbetterunderstoodSign2.
² MainWrongResponses:Signs1&2:Signsstandforspecifictypesofcrashes.Sign1:Rolloverdanger.
² SomeCPs(Belarus,Denmark,Hungary,Norway,Poland,andUkraine)useseveraladditionalpanelstoconveyspecifictypesofhighriskareas.
² Germanyhasspecificadditionalpanelstoo(carstrikingtree,cycle,andmotorcycle,butitisuncleariftheyarepartofnationalsignage.
² Kuwaithasawarningsignspecificallyforrolloverdanger.² Recommendations:ThoughR.E.2Sign1probablyhasbetterlegibility,it
shouldbereplacedbythemorecomprehensibleSign2.TheEGshouldconsiderwhethernumerousadditionalpanelsforspecifictypesofcrashesarewarranted.
SpecificHighRiskAreaSigns
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.49
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Denmark
Norway
Ukraine
KuwaitHungary Romania,Moldova
Germany
Belarus
SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Verylong
CP Verylow VerylongNon-CP Excellent Fair
CP Excellent Good
ReducedVisibility
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.50
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
COMMENTS² Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Poland’scomprehensionwashigherthanFinland’s.Sign2:Finland’scomprehensionwashigherthan
Poland’s.² MainWrongResponses:Sign1:Tunnel;crosswalk;donotknow.Sign2:Nonesignificant.² Sign1isbasedonR.E.2’sVMS,whichisadaptedfromtheCzechRepublic’sfixedsignforlowvisibilityandissimilartoSlovakia’ssign.² Recommendations:Sign1’ssymbolshouldbereplaced.AlthoughSign2hasexcellentlevelsofcomprehension,thesymbol’sdelicatedetail
renderitimpracticalforfixedsignageandVMS.Moreresearchisneededtofindasymbolwithsufficientcomprehensibilityandlegibility.
FAMILIARITYCanada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland
Notincode
Notincode
Notincode
Notincode
Notincode
1
2
InscribedSignsinaForeignLanguage
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.51
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
² Dr.Choocharukulhasgenerouslypermittedexcerptsfromhisresearchtobeincludedinthispresentation.
² In2017hepublishedtheresultsofastudyoftouristcomprehensionofThairoadsignsconductedbyhimwithcolleagues.
² Comprehensionof20signsby1091foreigndriversfrom5continentsweresurveyed:² Ofthe20signs,2(StopandGiveWay)wereinscribedinthelocallanguage.² Questionswereopenended.
² PreviousstudiesonStopsignsbyotherresearchersrevealed:² InscribedinthelocallanguageorinEnglish:89-100%comprehension.² InSaudiArabia,inscribedinArabic96%comprehensionandinEnglish92%.
² PreviousstudiesonGiveWaysignsbyotherresearchersrevealed:² Inscribedinthelocallanguage:81-96%comprehension.
² AccordingtoDr.Choocharukul,resultsrevealedthatinscribedsignsinalanguagenotunderstoodbydriverslowerscomprehensionofthesigns.
Source:K.ChoocharukulandK.Sriroongvikrai,“RoadSafetyAwarenessandComprehensionofRoadSignsfromInternationalTourist’sPerspectives:aCaseStudyofThailand,”TransportationResearchProcedia,2017.
InscribedSignsinaForeignLanguage
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.52
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Source:Authors’data;K.ChoocharukulandK.Sriroongvikrai,“RoadSafetyAwarenessandComprehensionofRoadSignsfromInternationalTourist’sPerspectives:aCaseStudyofThailand,”TransportationResearchProcedia,2017.
ComprehensionResults
% Region51 Africa20 Asia36 Australia57 Europe67 NorthAmerica47 ALL
% Region- Africa
13 Asia32 Australia36 Europe47 NorthAmerica31 ALL
Totalsarenotsimpleaveragesofthecontinentpercentagesbecausenumberofparticipantsvariedbyregion.
Summary
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² Signdesigndramaticallyaffectscomprehension.
² Nearlyeveryoneunderstandssomesignseveniftheyarenotusedintheircountryandareunfamiliartodrivers.
² Conversely,mostdriversmisunderstandsomesignsevenifthesignhasbeenusedintheircountryformorethanacentury.
² For14outof24signs,anAlternativesignhadhighercomprehensionprobability;for6signs,theConventionalsignhadhighercomprehensionprobability.Nosignificantdifferencewasrecordedfor4signs.
² Basedonthestudydata’ssoundnessandtheresearchteam’sexpertise,signswithsignificantcomprehensionprobabilitymaybeadded,replaced,ordeleted.
² Whenproposingsignchanges,ergonomicsisnottheonlyconsideration.Practicality(costandconsistencywiththesignsinothercountries)ispartofthedecision.
53
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Backphoto:Courtesyof©D.Gubler,CargoNetDi12“Euro4000,”Saltfjellet,Norway,2011.
Summary
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.
² Onaverage,olderdrivers’comprehensionprobabilityislowerthanthatofyoungerdrivers’.
² Onaverage,olderdrivers’RTisdramaticallyhigherthanthatofyoungerdrivers;slowRTsmayhavecriticalimplicationsforolderdrivers.
² Broadeningourtheresearchtoincludemoresignsandmorecountrieswouldprovidedataforissuesthatarestilloutstanding.
² Tocompletethesignselectionprocess,legibilitytestingshouldbeconductedonsignswithhighcomprehensionprobability.
² Nationaleducationalprogramstoraisesigncomprehensionwouldbewelcome,buttheireffectivenessislimitedtolocalpopulations.
² Misunderstoodsignsmustbeacknowledgedasaninternationalproblem.IfCPshavegoodsigncomprehensionandnon-CPsdonotorviceversa,itmatterseverywhereduetotheamountofinternationaldriving.
54
InternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Backphoto:Courtesyof©D.Gubler,CargoNetDi12“Euro4000,”Saltfjellet,Norway,2011.
©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.55Cargotraintravelinginsnowdriftsat~100km/h
ThankyouInternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject
Top Related