international road sign comprehension evaluation project · ² 3) experts evaluation study ......

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


² Cross-borderhazards

² Theissueofcomprehensionlevelofroadsignsusedindifferentcountriesiscritical.

² Driverslicensedinonecountrymayrentacaranddriveitinalmostanyothercountry,withsignsthatmaybeverydifferentfromthosetheyarefamiliarwith.

² TheexampleofNewZealand:Thiscountryhasarelativelyhighnumberoffatalcrashesinvolvingforeigndrivers.TheTransportAgencyattributesthecausetounfamiliarroaddesignandlayout,unfamiliarroadsigns,anddistractionbyscenery.Thisputsbothforeignnationalsandthelocalpopulationatrisk.

² Evenwhenforeigndriversrentingcarsreceiveabookletshowinglocalsigns,theymayreactbasedonthesignstheyhavebeenaccustomedtofollowingforyearswhenaninstantdecisionisrequired.

2


Coverphoto:Courtesyof©M.Mongenet,PanneauxAB2etM7,D12,Viuz-en-Sallaz,HauteSavoie,France,2017.

Cross-BorderHazards

©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.3


CourtesyofUNWorldTourismOrganization,AnnualReport,2016.

Cross-BorderHazards


Xx

4


CourtesyofUNWorldTourismOrganization,AnnualReport,2016.

²  Notalltouristsrentacaroramotorcycle.Somearecyclistsandallarepedestrians.Unfamiliarroadsignsmayconfuseallroadusercategories.

²  Thesenumbersdonotincludecommercialand“drive-through”drivers.

HistoryofCross-BorderRoadSignResearch


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


WhatIsanErgonomicallyDesignedSign?


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


StudyGoals


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


Methodology


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


Methodology


²  4)MainStudy–DriverComprehensionandReactionTime

²  7seniorresearchersfrom5countriestookpartintheMainStudy.²  56signsweretested–24Conventionalsignsand32Alternatives.²  Participantsweredividedinto3groups:

Novicedrivers:Upto1yearofdrivingexperience.Experienceddrivers:>5yearsofdrivingexperienceandupto55yearsold.Olderdrivers:65+yearsold.

²  Datacollectionlastedmorethan18months.²  Tableofsamplefrequencies:

9


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



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


Analysis



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


Analysis



² Statisticalanalysis:² Comprehensionaccuracyprobabilityanalyzedusing2models:

²  Abinarylogisticmodel,whichcombinedcategoriesindicatingwronganswers(-2,0à0)andcategoriesindicatingcorrectanswers(1,2à1);and

²  Anordinallogisticmodel,whichincludedthefullscaleofcodingcategoriesandestimatesoftheprobabilitytoappearinonecategoryvs.theother.

² RTtestedusingGEEmodel.

12


WhenaConventionalsignhadmorethanoneAlternative,meancodinggradeswerecomparedforeachpairofsigns.

Forexample:

RatingsofSigns



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)



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



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



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



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.


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?



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




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




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



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



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



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




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



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


NoEntryforPedestrians



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.


1

2

Courtesyof©H.Hammer,Baumkirchen,Austria,2012.

NoMotorcycles



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.


SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Excellent

CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Verylow Good

CP Good Excellent

1

2

ComprehensionVs.Legibility


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


SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Fair Excellent

CP Verylow ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Excellent

CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Excellent


CycleLaneorTrackOnly



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



Thisslidehas4prohibitorysignsand4mandatorysigns.Candriversandcyclistscorrectlyidentifythem?

Areminder:ExcellentRTmeansshortRT.Whencombinedwithoppositeanswers,itindicatesdriverconfidenceintheoppositemeaningofthesign.ThisoccurredwithmostparticipantsforSign1anditrepresentsamajorhazard.

SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Fair Verylong

CP Fair FairNon-CP Good Fair


Non-CP Fair VerylongCP Fair Verylong

GiveWayAhead




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


CP Verylow FairNon-CP Excellent Good

CP Good Excellent

Non-CP Excellent ExcellentCP Excellent Excellent

Non-CP Excellent ExcellentCP Excellent Excellent

StopSignAhead




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



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.


Not

incode

Not

incode

Not

incode

1

2 ExampleofoneofSweden’ssigns

PriorityforLeftTurn



Courtesyof©Morgan,Belgium,2014.

Sweden’sprobablesignforthisintersection


CP Good ExcellentNon-CP Good Good

CP Good GoodNon-CP Fair Verylong

CP Fair Fair

Crossroad



FAMILIARITYNATIONALPRIORITYRULE

Canada Israel SAfrica Finland Poland

FAMILIARITYPRIORITYSTRAIGHTAHEAD


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.


CP Good GoodNon-CP Good Verylong

CP Good Good

EndofPriorityRoad



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.


Notincode

1

2

Poland’sSolutiontoRaiseComprehensionofSignB,4



Courtesyof©MunicipalOfficeinPakość,Poland,2017.


CP Good GoodNon-CP Verylow Verylong

CP Good Fair

PriorityforOncomingTraffic



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.


Quebec

1

2

NewZealand’ssignassembly

SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Excellent

CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Excellent


Roundabout



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.


Left

1

2

Right RightRightRight

SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Excellent Fair

CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Excellent Good


StartofBuilt-upArea



COMMENTS²  Comprehension&RTComparison:Sign1:Almostnoonementionedlowerspeedlimit.Sign2:Thevastmajoritymentionedlowerspeedlimit.² MainWrongResponses:Nonesignificant.²  Signs1and2areunderstoodwellevenincountriesthatdonothavethesign.²  Recommendations:Sign1requiresnoalteration,butcommunitiesmustensureawarenessofthereducedspeedlimit(s)inbuilt-upareas.


Notincode

Notincode1

2


CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Good Fair

CP Excellent Good

EndofMaximumSpeedLimit



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.


Newspeedlimitposted

Newspeedlimitposted

1

2

EndofMaximumSpeedLimit–Are2SignsNeeded?



Courtesyof©M.Mongenet,Surl’autorouteA410,Haute-Savoie,France,2017.Photocropped.

SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Verylow Excellent

CP Verylow ExcellentNon-CP Good Good


MinimumSpeed



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.


Notincode

1

2 Finlandadvisedspeedlimit


Fair Verylow FairNon-CP Excellent Fair


TollAhead,StoppingRequired



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.


Not

incode

Not

incode

Sweden

France

1

2


CP Good ExcellentNon-CP Verylow Verylong

CP Verylow Verylong

NoStopping



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.


1

2Symbolwithpossiblybettermemorability


CP Excellent ExcellentNon-CP Good Good

CP Good Excellent

Crosswind



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.


1

2

SIGN COMPREHENSION RTNon-CP Good Fair

CP Good GoodNon-CP Good Fair

CP Good Good

EndofPavedRoad



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.


Notincode

Notincode

1

2


CP Verylow GoodNon-CP Excellent Fair

CP Good Good

CrashAhead(temporary)orHighRiskArea(permanent)



FAMILIARITYCRASHAHEAD


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



Denmark

Norway

Ukraine

KuwaitHungary Romania,Moldova

Germany

Belarus


CP Verylow VerylongNon-CP Excellent Fair

CP Excellent Good

ReducedVisibility



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.


Notincode

Notincode

Notincode

Notincode

Notincode

1

2

InscribedSignsinaForeignLanguage



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



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


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


Backphoto:Courtesyof©D.Gubler,CargoNetDi12“Euro4000,”Saltfjellet,Norway,2011.

Summary


²  Onaverage,olderdrivers’comprehensionprobabilityislowerthanthatofyoungerdrivers’.

²  Onaverage,olderdrivers’RTisdramaticallyhigherthanthatofyoungerdrivers;slowRTsmayhavecriticalimplicationsforolderdrivers.

²  Broadeningourtheresearchtoincludemoresignsandmorecountrieswouldprovidedataforissuesthatarestilloutstanding.

²  Tocompletethesignselectionprocess,legibilitytestingshouldbeconductedonsignswithhighcomprehensionprobability.

²  Nationaleducationalprogramstoraisesigncomprehensionwouldbewelcome,buttheireffectivenessislimitedtolocalpopulations.

²  Misunderstoodsignsmustbeacknowledgedasaninternationalproblem.IfCPshavegoodsigncomprehensionandnon-CPsdonotorviceversa,itmatterseverywhereduetotheamountofinternationaldriving.

54


Backphoto:Courtesyof©D.Gubler,CargoNetDi12“Euro4000,”Saltfjellet,Norway,2011.

©2018.T.Ben-Bassat,Israel,andM.Pronin.USA.55Cargotraintravelinginsnowdriftsat~100km/h

ThankyouInternationalRoadSignComprehensionEvaluationProject

international road sign comprehension evaluation project · ² 3) experts evaluation study ......

Documents