# Europe is now one country, with a federal Highway Code



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

^^ that's something that is sorely lacking in EU countries,_ right turn on red_ (or left turn on red in RHD countries and on one-way streets). I don't know why not more popular, but East Germany (!) had it (maybe the only 'freedom' benefit there?) It is a proven measure (40+ years already) that saves fuel, reduces pollution and congestion, and does not have negative impacts on road safety.

Another thing that would be nice is cardinal directions on road signs... but I guess both points are too American :lol:

---
The Aussie road signs are pretty strange at first sight... they look like British signs but with American typeface
Almost like how the Dutch signs look like German but with American typefaces  (the NL signs are really attractive IMO)


----------



## devo (Jun 24, 2011)

United States or United Kingdom? I'd prefer the latter, combined with the Danish and Dutch (these three are quite similar in layout)


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

Kanadzie said:


> ^^ that's something that is sorely lacking in EU countries,_ right turn on red_ (or left turn on red in RHD countries and on one-way streets). I don't know why not more popular, but East Germany (!) had it (maybe the only 'freedom' benefit there?) It is a proven measure (40+ years already) that saves fuel, reduces pollution and congestion, and does not have negative impacts on road safety.


Right on red does place pedestrians in a more exposed position. This impact on road safety is also recognised in the US. While the States are generally open to right on red, it will often be prohibited because of pedestrian risks or other factors. Europe has always worked the other way around: in principle not, but allowed in specific cases. Of course this leaves a lot less permissions in Europe than you have in the US. But here other factors could play a role too: stronger suburbanisation in the USA and into urban sprawl where car is king, the grid patterns of US cities, roundabouts in Europe etc. In Europe, the positive impact on congestion/pollution could also be limited by the lack of wiiiiide urban boulevards where you could have a free-flowing right turn lane.



> Another thing that would be nice is cardinal directions on road signs...


This is something that I would definitely favour. But where American intersections are often ONLY signposted with the road numbers and cardinal directions, I would like to introduce this as an ADD-ON to the destinations as signposted.


----------



## BEE2 (May 7, 2013)

g.spinoza said:


> I reject the premise of this ("Europe is now one country"). I think the Union is going to break up soon.



For what reason the EU will be breaking up soon? Brief explanation is needed.


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

Kanadzie said:


> ^^ that's something that is sorely lacking in EU countries,_ right turn on red_ (or left turn on red in RHD countries and on one-way streets). I don't know why not more popular, but East Germany (!) had it (maybe the only 'freedom' benefit there?) It is a proven measure (40+ years already) that saves fuel, reduces pollution and congestion, and does not have negative impacts on road safety.


As a rule you cannot turn right on red in Estonia but there are ways to allow it.

One way is physically seprating the lanes going straight from the right turn like this. This is very often used in Estonia but usually there's a separate turning lane. Examples: 1,2,3

The other option is having a separate green arrow which allows you to move in the direction of the arrow but you don't have right of way like here. There are not many places like this, though, and pedestrians can't cross the street at that time (so you might as well have a protected turn there).


----------



## General Maximus (Dec 29, 2015)

BEE2 said:


> For what reason the EU will be breaking up soon? Brief explanation is needed.


That's not the point of this thread, nor is the right place to discuss political issues.


----------



## General Maximus (Dec 29, 2015)

Germany and The Netherlands are in the lead at the moment. Doesn't it bother people that The Netherlands uses one colour only for all its signs?


----------



## MichiH (Jan 5, 2013)

Kanadzie said:


> _right turn on red_. I don't know why not more popular, but East Germany (!) had it


Wrong. Eastern Germany still has it and it applies to whole Germany now. It's not a generally allowed but at junctions with "green arrow" sign.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

-Pino- said:


> Right on red does place pedestrians in a more exposed position. This impact on road safety is also recognised in the US. While the States are generally open to right on red, it will often be prohibited because of pedestrian risks or other factors. Europe has always worked the other way around: in principle not, but allowed in specific cases. Of course this leaves a lot less permissions in Europe than you have in the US. But here other factors could play a role too: stronger suburbanisation in the USA and into urban sprawl where car is king, the grid patterns of US cities,* roundabouts in Europe *etc..


I think it is interesting to consider though - for example one argument you hear commonly against roundabouts in particular in the US is the "risk to pedestrians" :lol: Logically the situation is essentially the same - traffic enters the intersection looking left and forgets to look at the pedestrian on the right...


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

-Pino- said:


> ...
> 
> This is something that I would definitely favour. But where American intersections are often ONLY signposted with the road numbers and cardinal directions, I would like to introduce this as an ADD-ON to the destinations as signposted.


Yep. (And we, as I've said many times, make silly and inconsistent "control city" choices - I don't even like the term - and don't give enough of them.)


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

General Maximus said:


> Germany and The Netherlands are in the lead at the moment. Doesn't it bother people that The Netherlands uses one colour only for all its signs?


Doesn't bother me. 
Being used to directional signage that's entirely in green.

The mix of blue, white and green in France or Britain is meaningless to people from countries that don't do that. And to me at least looks messy. (It looked random too, until I understood what the color choices meant.)


----------



## Rebasepoiss (Jan 6, 2007)

^^ I agree, it doesn't really matter which colour the signs are. Directional signage should always point you to your destination along the preferred route. It doesn't really matter if that route is a motorway, 1x2 lane expressway or a winding contry road. Your goal is to reach your destination after all.


----------



## UnequalSine (Feb 5, 2013)

And in the Dutch system important roads (highways = red and regional roads = yellow) have their own colour, so the information about the road system is sort of available.


----------



## MichiH (Jan 5, 2013)

Ok, I thought about the question...

I don't think that it's necessary to have an unique "European Highway Code". The countries' federal highway codes are different but I think there's not a perfect system which could be applied to all countries.

I usually don't care too much about things like this but according to my experience, the German and Dutch system are similar and I'm used to it. That's why I prefer these systems but I don't vote for them to be applied to whole Europe.

I like the US "East"/"West" signs and I think they are good for US but I think it does not match to countries like Germany or the Netherlands. I don't like some details of the Austrian, Romanian and Italian systems but I have no clear opinion about the other systems - mostly due to lack of experience especially because today's navigation is based on GPS.


----------



## stickedy (Mar 8, 2011)

In my opinion the Croatian system is the best in EU. It has clear signage and informations. Germany e.g. has a bad signing of cities. You can't be sure which one is signed on the next occassion. Austria e.g. is very confusing.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

UnequalSine said:


> in the Dutch system important roads (highways = red and regional roads = yellow) have their own colour, so the information about the road system is sort of available.


This becomes helpful only when you are on the direct approach of a numbered road. One of the things that I like most about the use of different colours is how you can drive somewhere in the middle of town and then see the directions to the motorway (i.e. main roads out) standing out in a patch with a different colour. The same applies when you are driving somewhere in the province, looking for the main routes out. In countries like Germany, France, the UK and most others in Europe, the coloured patch will highlight the destination that a lot of motorists unfamiliar in the area will be keen to know. In the Netherlands, these destinations are somewhere in the middle of local destinations (sometimes signposted as a plain text road number, sometimes as Ring, sometimes as the control cities of the motorway with a bracketed road number, sometimes as the control cities of the motorway without any addition), in the same white-on-blue as all the rest.

This is definitely not the end of the World, and as Penn's Woods already mentioned, let's not forget that the US and all those countries with MUTCD-based signage are single colour too. But if I could start from scratch in any given country, I would use two colours. In fact, the Dutch experimented with "freeway green" in the early 1970s. While the experiment was well received, it was discontinued as a result of cost considerations.



MichiH said:


> I like the US "East"/"West" signs and I think they are good for US but I think it does not match to countries like Germany or the Netherlands.


Most German and Dutch road numbers have one general bearing, and it is usually straightforward to attribute one of the four cardinal directions to that bearing. You do not need the perfect grid pattern of the US Midwest to signpost cardinal dieections. In the specific case of Germany: the motorway numbering was designed as a grid and on the basis of the general direction, so why not actually introduce it? In both Germany and the Netherlands, the number of non-ringroad motorways that actually change direction is pretty small. You can deal with road like the German A3 and the Dutch A7 creatively and just take the straightforward approach for all the rest.


----------



## MichiH (Jan 5, 2013)

^^ But the cardinal directions are not signed at all. For instance, Munich and Nuremberg are signed where you can enter the German A9 instead of North and South.


----------



## havaska (Dec 26, 2005)

UK missing from the voting list but we have a picture of the M25 London


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

MichiH said:


> But the cardinal directions are not signed at all. For instance, Munich and Nuremberg are signed where you can enter the German A9 instead of North and South.


I know (leaving aside some signs in Köln guiding you from the city centre to the main motorways). But wasn't the discussion about whether they could/should be added on Dutch and German signs?


----------



## General Maximus (Dec 29, 2015)

havaska said:


> UK missing from the voting list but we have a picture of the M25 London


Yes, I forgot about that. Sorry...


----------



## MichiH (Jan 5, 2013)

-Pino- said:


> But wasn't the discussion about whether they could/should be added on Dutch and German signs?


Sorry, I misunderstood your previous post. I agree now .


----------



## Metred (May 14, 2010)

I honestly believe the Spanish system to be the superior one, but I might be biased.



















White letters on blue background for motorways, black letters on white background for the rest.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

-Pino- said:


> Most German and Dutch road numbers have one general bearing, and it is usually straightforward to attribute one of the four cardinal directions to that bearing. You do not need the perfect grid pattern of the US Midwest to signpost cardinal dieections. In the specific case of Germany: the motorway numbering was designed as a grid and on the basis of the general direction, so why not actually introduce it? In both Germany and the Netherlands, the number of non-ringroad motorways that actually change direction is pretty small. You can deal with road like the German A3 and the Dutch A7 creatively and just take the straightforward approach for all the rest.


Interstates are also numbered according to cardinal bearing. I know that I-35 will run north-south and I-66 will run east-west without looking at cardinal directional signage.

However, as I've noted before, that doesn't mean that cardinal directional signage is unimportant, especially once you've got a unified road network at a continental scale. For example, it would be nonsensical for _all_ of E-80's control cities to be listed at its western terminus, or in Madrid, or wherever. The list would be absurdly long and probably spread out over multiple signboards. It's not useful at all. 

Cardinal directional signage is a useful alternative to that: you signpost the three or four most local control cities and use cardinal directional signage to show that the road continues on. So I-70 in Columbus might get signposted towards Pittsburgh and then "East", or towards Indianapolis and then "West".

The other use of cardinal directional signage is to indicate, well, direction when a junction is too minor to merit specific control cities.

I do agree with Penn's Woods that the U.S. goes too far in _that_ direction, though. An optimal signage system has to work at every scale from the local to the continental.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

^^Another reason for including directions is that a reference to "E19 Antwerpen" may refer to the northbound roadway or to the southbound roadway, depending what side of Antwerp you're on. "I-95 North" always refers to the northbound side. I've heard European traffic reports say things like "the A1, direction Paris-Lille"....


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

UnequalSine said:


> And in the Dutch system important roads (highways = red and regional roads = yellow) have their own colour, so the information about the road system is sort of available.


Is there a reason the Dutch keep A- and E-numbers separate like that?


----------



## General Maximus (Dec 29, 2015)

They keep it separate everywhere. Only a few countries like Belgium and Sweden stick with E-numbers as their primary national route numbers. The Germans and the French only display them sporadically...


----------



## grykaerugoves (Jun 25, 2013)

Europe should copy the British on everything including driving on the right.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

grykaerugoves said:


> Europe should copy the British on everything including driving on the right.


And boom! goes the dynamite.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

^^ If there is one thing on which you cannot copy the British it is driving on the right. Maybe in NOT driving on the right-hand side?



General Maximus said:


> They keep it separate everywhere. Only a few countries like Belgium and Sweden stick with E-numbers as their primary national route numbers. The Germans and the French only display them sporadically...


That's not exactly the Dutch position nowadays. If a road has one E-number and one A-number, both shields will be placed next to one another on the baseline of the sign. Between every pair of arrows, you'd get two shields. So on the more easterly part of the A12, which is E35 only, you would get _[arrow] A12 E35 [arrow] A12 E35 [arrow]_. So this sign at the N11 intersection marks the exception, and that is because we find ourselves on a duplex. On a duplex of A-roads or E-roads, there is not enough space between the arrows to display all shields. So then the A-shields go onto the baseline, and the E-shields go to the top.

To add to the confusion, until 2005 or so all E-shields on Dutch signs would be placed at the top of the signs, but we changed because some people thought that a more prominent position for the little used E-routes would actually be helpful. For examples of the resultant 'traffic light gantries', see here.


----------



## General Maximus (Dec 29, 2015)

I thought I noticed that something has changed with the E-allocations. Very cool site by the way, I've added it to my favourites...


----------



## UnequalSine (Feb 5, 2013)

But does one ever use the E-numbers? I find it quite unnecessary as every nation uses their local road-numbering in traffic reports, detours and governmental communication (as far as I know).


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

UnequalSine said:


> But does one ever use the E-numbers? I find it quite unnecessary as every nation uses their local road-numbering in traffic reports, detours and governmental communication (as far as I know).


It depends on the road, and the country. In Italy, SS3bis is better known by everybody as "E45".


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

^^ Italy may be one of the weirder countries in this respect, as E45 for the SS3bis is just about the one E-number generally known in Italy. But that's only for the Cesena-Orte part; you won't hear E45 being used as the number for the other parts of the E45 in Italy. E78 would be distant second in terms of Italian E-numbers prevailing over national numbers; largely in the context of upgrading the Grosseto-Fano corridor that holds this E-number (which upgrade affects many national road numbers).

In any event, in Belgium, Denmark, Norway and Sweden, E-numbers prevail over national road numbers. In fact, Norway and Sweden have not even allocated national numbers to their E-routes, and Danish E-routes have an administrative national number only that is not signposted. Belgium wouldn't be Belgium if they were not the odd one out in some respect, and that is for its E-routes that are part of a signposted ring road or not running over a motorway. All in all, as you mention: whether national numbers prevail over E-numbers depends on the road and the country. But it is also fair to say that E-numbers were used much more prominently in the 1960s and 1970s and gradually lost ground in favour of national numbers since.


----------



## -Pino- (Aug 12, 2007)

hammersklavier said:


> I do agree with Penn's Woods that the U.S. goes too far in _that_ direction, though. An optimal signage system has to work at every scale from the local to the continental.


Both in the US and in Europe, there is not enough cross-continental traffic to justify the use of destinations at the continental scale. Signposting the two termini Seattle and Boston all along I-90 makes as little sense as signposting the two termini Amsterdam and Rome all along the E35. Or, taking it to the extreme, towns in the empty open spaces of Kazakhstan on the E40 or those of Northern Sweden on the E45. 

In both cases, continental traffic on the main cross-continental routes will be assisted well enough if there is a well-known big city on the signs all the time. A city that tourists and professional drivers from other states/countries will be more or less instantly familiar with. On Europe's main roads that should be easily achievable. Conversely, in the more sparsely populated areas of the US, we have to accept that finding a large, instantly recognisable town along the route is often difficult. If you used a threshold of 750,000 inhabitants for the metropolitan area, you would have to signpost Chicago on the I-90 east of Seattle (and vice versa of course). That is over 2000 miles / 3000 km away. Even in the East, something like signposting New York from Cleveland brings you to numbers on the distance signs that you won't see in many parts of Europe. That's where the cardinal direction comes into play. But as discussed the US DOTs could often try harder to find better destinations, in the form of large interstate cities rather than just the small town that's close to the first intersection with another Interstate route.


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

-Pino- said:


> Both in the US and in Europe, there is not enough cross-continental traffic to justify the use of destinations at the continental scale. Signposting the two termini Seattle and Boston all along I-90 makes as little sense as signposting the two termini Amsterdam and Rome all along the E35. Or, taking it to the extreme, towns in the empty open spaces of Kazakhstan on the E40 or those of Northern Sweden on the E45.
> 
> In both cases, continental traffic on the main cross-continental routes will be assisted well enough if there is a well-known big city on the signs all the time. A city that tourists and professional drivers from other states/countries will be more or less instantly familiar with. On Europe's main roads that should be easily achievable. Conversely, in the more sparsely populated areas of the US, we have to accept that finding a large, instantly recognisable town along the route is often difficult. If you used a threshold of 750,000 inhabitants for the metropolitan area, you would have to signpost Chicago on the I-90 east of Seattle (and vice versa of course). That is over 2000 miles / 3000 km away. Even in the East, something like signposting New York from Cleveland brings you to numbers on the distance signs that you won't see in many parts of Europe. That's where the cardinal direction comes into play. But as discussed the US DOTs could often try harder to find better destinations, in the form of large interstate cities rather than just the small town that's close to the first intersection with another Interstate route.


None of that invalidates my point about cardinal-directionality being useful as a heuristic, though. You use local control cities and the directional marker to indicate that the road extends beyond them. So on I-90 in e.g. Montana, Billings (pop. just north of 100k) is the primary control city, while "eastbound" is useful for traffic to Mt. Rushmore, the Twin Cities, Chicago, or even further on, and "westbound" for traffic to the PNW. The directional marker folds a whole raft of possible destinations into one single word.

And there is *plenty* of cross-continental traffic, both in the US and Europe. You just don't notice it if you're a driver ... because it's mostly trucks.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

-Pino- said:


> Both in the US and in Europe, there is not enough cross-continental traffic to justify the use of destinations at the continental scale. Signposting the two termini Seattle and Boston all along I-90 makes as little sense as signposting the two termini Amsterdam and Rome all along the E35. Or, taking it to the extreme, towns in the empty open spaces of Kazakhstan on the E40 or those of Northern Sweden on the E45.
> 
> In both cases, continental traffic on the main cross-continental routes will be assisted well enough if there is a well-known big city on the signs all the time. A city that tourists and professional drivers from other states/countries will be more or less instantly familiar with. On Europe's main roads that should be easily achievable. Conversely, in the more sparsely populated areas of the US, we have to accept that finding a large, instantly recognisable town along the route is often difficult. If you used a threshold of 750,000 inhabitants for the metropolitan area, you would have to signpost Chicago on the I-90 east of Seattle (and vice versa of course). That is over 2000 miles / 3000 km away. Even in the East, something like signposting New York from Cleveland brings you to numbers on the distance signs that you won't see in many parts of Europe. That's where the cardinal direction comes into play. But as discussed the US DOTs could often try harder to find better destinations, in the form of large interstate cities rather than just the small town that's close to the first intersection with another Interstate route.


I'm not suggesting posting Boston and Seattle from end to end. But give the next reasonably big city, not just Bloomsburg or Bellefonte. And then there's inconsistency. Utah will give the next sizable or important city even if it's hundreds of miles away. New Jersey and Pennsylvania go local. Illinois, in the Chicago area at least, gives the neighboring states. And then there are distance signs. You can drive from Philadelphia to Harrisburg on either the Pennsylvania Turnpike or US 322 and not encounter a single sign giving the distance to Harrisburg until you're almost there.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

I am trying to think of it, what do urban motorways show in European countries, when there is no logical destination city on either end or along the path, aside from the city it already is?

I'm sure there are a ton of 3-digit Bundesautobahnen like this... Berliner Stadtring comes to mind.

For example in the Toronto area, Highway 407 is only signed west and east without a city. (curiously though, the QEW highway in the same area is signed only with cities, and no directions)

Or in the Montreal area, Highway 440 as well (the A-440 only runs in one city, Laval, a suburb of Montreal)


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

^^Indirect destinations:

Lyon, Bordeaux, Rouen and the like on the Paris Périphérique, for example. Another thing that would make some American highway officials' heads explode.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

^^ France just posts absurd lists of virtually every city in the country though on the signs and then after installing them remembers to add a 12 inch (sorry, 300 mm) wide panel showing the route number duct-taped on top :lol:


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

Penn's Woods said:


> I'm not suggesting posting Boston and Seattle from end to end. But give the next reasonably big city, not just Bloomsburg or Bellefonte. And then there's inconsistency. Utah will give the next sizable or important city even if it's hundreds of miles away. New Jersey and Pennsylvania go local. Illinois, in the Chicago area at least, gives the neighboring states. And then there are distance signs. You can drive from Philadelphia to Harrisburg on either the Pennsylvania Turnpike or US 322 and not encounter a single sign giving the distance to Harrisburg until you're almost there.


One solution to control cities would be to regulate thus:

The next two cities pop 20k or 30k and above, and
The next alpha city pop 100k and above

So I-95 heading northbound from Philadelphia would have *Trenton*, *New Brunswick*, and *New York* as the control cities.

(Why? Well New York is the alpha city of the region, so even though Newark has 277k people signposting it doesn't make any kind of sense.)

Similarly, I-76 heading west of King of Prussia would have *Lancaster*, *Harrisburg*, and *Pittsburgh* as the three control cities. And so on.

I have no idea about distance signs. Perhaps place one every 10 miles/20 km or so, as well as about ~1 mi/km past a major freeway junction?


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

piotr71 said:


> I always use E system on long distance trips. I have never encountered any major problems with it, apart from intermittent E-routes signage in some countries, such as Germany, for example. National roads' numbers are of secondary and rather auxiliary importance to me (still have in mind foreign long journeys).


My GPS (google maps) was always pushing only E-route numbers when I was driving through Poland. I found it almost useless as DK-roads had the E-number signed very rarely (but, A and S roads had them everywhere). I was really annoyed at the GPS since I couldn't figure out how to switch it to tell me the DK-number...


----------



## HansCity (Jul 9, 2012)

*United States of Europe?*


----------



## piotr71 (Sep 8, 2009)

Kanadzie said:


> My GPS (google maps) was always pushing only E-route numbers when I was driving through Poland. I found it almost useless as DK-roads had the E-number signed very rarely (but, A and S roads had them everywhere). I was really annoyed at the GPS since I couldn't figure out how to switch it to tell me the DK-number...


That's true, on DK roads "E" number usually appears on distance signs. But driving in Poland, considering this country as a final destination, I'd rather called 'local trip' or 'local set of trips', not a long distance journey. Let me briefly explain what I actually mean: when I take Calais - Bielsko-Biała route I have several option to chose. Most obvious, however not shortest would be E40+E75, then combination of E40,E34, E30, E36, E40 and E75 again. There is also E40, E34 + German motorways A40, A44,A7, A38, A14 and A4 (E40) + E40 and E75 in Poland. There, obviously, exists some more combinations. When I know numbers of main corridors I will be using, I simply match national roads to them and start my trip. Btw, I do not use sat-nav of any sort - I do use maps only.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

italystf said:


> S-x expressways exist in Austria and Poland, but not in Germany, where expressway are numbered with B like other federal roads (_Bundestrassen_).


That's why I wrote "made-over". Poland and Austria though have only two categories of ordinary roads, which isn't enough for a big country.


----------



## Triple C (Aug 23, 2010)

Metred said:


> I honestly believe the Spanish system to be the superior one, but I might be biased.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It's similiar with Turkey by font, design, color scheme, and road levelization (*O*toyol, *E*uropean, *D*evlet (State), and Provincial.).


Dumlupınar Bulvarı - 23.6.15 by Onur Taner, on Flickr


Sivrihisar Interchange by Onur Taner, on Flickr


P4170076 by Onur Taner, on Flickr


P8200334 by Onur Taner, on Flickr


Alarahan by Onur Taner, on Flickr

Though rusted, even looks well designed in rural;


----------



## UnequalSine (Feb 5, 2013)

So, over the last few months I've been working on my favourite combination of European road signs. For I begin, I would like to point out the fact that I'm Dutch and have mostly based my combination on personal experiences. I've always liked the French and German systems, and really disliked the Belgium one (sorry neighbours! :wave. 

My systems is basically a mix between the German, Dutch and French system, and used the font of the Swedish system. It incorporates the difference between local and highways by color labeling (blue background for highways, white background for non-highways), something the Dutch system is lacking. Furthermore I propose a uniform shield for both highways (same as the current German system), and a shield for important, but non-highway roads. 

Highway intersections are not numbered, in contrary to the German system, seems a bit of an overkill for me.

Destinations are order from close to further away, but the sorting depends on the most logical flow of reading. If an arrows point up from bellow, the closest goal will be at the bottom and the furthest goal will be at the top. If an arrow is missing the closest goal is at the top.

Really interested to know what you guys think! :cheers:

*General Highway Signage*

Arrows are pointed up, as studies have proven this actually increases road capacity. If a lane splits up into two the arrow indicates that situation. 




























*Intersection between highways*

First the intersection will be announced at 3km out










Then a general high-level overview of the intersection is presented at 2km distance










At 1500m and closer the actual lanes will be shown [note: icon + english for Toll for the entire European system.]



















*Regular exit*

First announcement at 1500m out with the only the most important destination










At 900m out, any other important destinations are highlighted, such as hospitals, universities, sport stadiums. 










At 500m a more detailed view of the destinations and the road are presented 










At the actual exit this will be the signage










*Area's of interest*

Larger area's that are of interest, but can be reached with multiple exits are designated with brown signs. I imagine those will be mostly used for National Parks or large amusement parks 


















*Misc*

Announcement for bridges or tunnels in grey:




























Again, text in English:


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Too much text


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

You shouldn't use capital letters only. A text in capital letters must be read letter by letter, while with capital and lowercase letters you recognize the shape of the words. So reading a capital letters only text is slower.

A thing which definitely should be mentioned here is a system prepared by the users of the Polish SSC section some years ago.

http://www.drogowskazclassic.pl - the website is Polish only, but you will find the examples easily

http://www.drogowskazclassic.pl/drogowskaz_classic.pdf - the documentation

It is based on the Polish signage system, but with many improvements based on other systems in Europe - as the Polish one was very bad (now, we have a new "experimental" one as well, which is much better, although still worse than the SSC one).

It was presented to the government - but which governmental official would admit that some ordinary people "from some weird forum" can do something better than they?

The new "experimental" system applies, at least, some of its features.


----------



## marciomaco (Jan 17, 2009)

Portugal nees a refurbishment on its numbering system: We have stretches of road that can have 3 different numbers :lol:


----------



## aswnl (Jun 6, 2004)

UnequalSine said:


>


These Tatrex capitals should at least be 40 cm in hight to be readable on a certain distance, probably even bigger.

I deduct that this sign will be 80 m2 big, and the heart-on-heart lanewidth will be appr. 4,90 meter....


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

But why capitals?

Don't use capitals on road signage. It reduces road safety forcing the drivers to focus on a text for a longer time to read it.

I believe the French do it because they want to be different from Germans. But most countries use lowercase letters and this is the proper way.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

Kpc21 said:


> ... But most countries use lowercase letters and this is the proper way.


I believe the U.S. is now requiring states, and even local governments, to use lower-case on directional signage. For the last few years, Philadelphia, where I live, has been posting street names in lower case when the city replaces signs, without other changes in the format of the signs. (Personally, I don't see the need, at least at city speeds, and I find the all-caps nicer looking on street-name signs. But it could just be because I'm used to them.)


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

aswnl said:


> These Tatrex capitals should at least be 40 cm in hight to be readable on a certain distance, probably even bigger.
> 
> I deduct that this sign will be 80 m2 big, and the heart-on-heart lanewidth will be appr. 4,90 meter....


The Dutch may have the best directional signage in Europe. Don't change a thing.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

UnequalSine said:


> ....
> Again, text in English:


"Welcome *to* Germany" would be English.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

The question is whether English really should be used on the sign.

I know it's the most popular language used in the EU for international contacts, but... it's not more official in any way than any other language of the EU countries. Actually, it may lose the status of an official EU language in the near future.

And, generally, in each country, the language on the signage is the language of the country. Usually the signs are made in such a way, that somebody not speaking the language may think that he is not allowed to do something that he is actually allowed to do, but never vice versa. Like a "no turning left" sign with a plate with an exception under it. With an exception, but not with anything that would extend the meaning of the sign.

There are exception for this rule. For example, this sign:










does not normally apply to the disabled, but in Poland it's allowed to add a plate saying "Applies also to the disabled". But it's a rare case, caused by the fact that there is no specific "no entry" sign that would apply also to the disabled, except for this one:










which has an additional meaning, so it cannot always be used, and for safety reasons it is sometimes necessary to make it not allowed to enter a street by car also for the disabled.

But taking into account the fact that anyway the language used on the sign is always the language of the country (or the part of the country) it is placed in, it would be also not a problem that there would be "Wilkommen in DEUTSCHLAND" on this sign and not "Welcome to GERMANY". Or an option in two languages - of two countries that border there.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

^^Hear, hear.

I was thinking, as I looked at those sample signs, that I couldn't imagine France willingly putting words like "Toll" and "Fuel" in English *only*. Cultural diversity is perhaps Europe's biggest asset (at least from the point of view of North America, where there's not much of it). You see all sorts of local-language text on signs in Europe now, even in countries with "obscure" languages like Dutch; people somehow manage to deal with it. (I've driven in the Benelux, and I read Dutch pretty well....)

Although I assume English will remain an official language of the E.U. unless there's an Irexit.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

marciomaco said:


> Portugal nees a refurbishment on its numbering system: We have stretches of road that can have 3 different numbers :lol:


Take your cue from Spain: Six different colors or so and dozens of prefixes....


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

UnequalSine said:


> ....Destinations are order from close to further away, but the sorting depends on the most logical flow of reading. If an arrows point up from bellow, the closest goal will be at the bottom and the furthest goal will be at the top. If an arrow is missing the closest goal is at the top....


Regardless of arrow placement, does the human eye ever naturally read a list from the bottom up?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Penn's Woods said:


> Although I assume English will remain an official language of the E.U. unless there's an Irexit.


Each country in Europe chose one language to be official, and one only: UK chose English, Ireland chose Gaelic. So technically, after Brexit, English should be official in EU no more, unless Ireland switches to English.


----------



## Highway89 (Feb 19, 2015)

Penn's Woods said:


> Take your cue from Spain: Six different colors or so and dozens of prefixes....


_Seven_ AFAIK  (Blue, red, orange, green, yellow, purple and grey)

There must be around 70 different road administrations in Spain, each of which have remit to make their own rules. We're still far from our maximum potential :troll:

Anyway, I haven't seen any road in Spain with more than two numbers and it's just for a few km (N-623 and N-627). In other cases one of the routes just "overlaps" the rest. That's precisely why we use so many prefixes - to simplify concurrencies and avoid spurs/loops. E.g. instead of A-12/N-232/N-111 we just call it LO-20.

And not all regions/provinces use all colours and prefixes. For instance, we "only" use five prefixes (AP, A, N, LR, LO) and five colours (Blue, red, orange, green and yellow).

Besides, most people in Spain don't use road numbers to navigate, except maybe the main "A" roads (1 to 9). Otherwise people just look for control cities.


----------



## Kanadzie (Jan 3, 2014)

Penn's Woods said:


> The Dutch may have the best directional signage in Europe. Don't change a thing.


Because it mostly copies the American, most notably the excellent FHWA typeface :cheers:


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

g.spinoza said:


> Each country in Europe chose one language to be official, and one only: UK chose English, Ireland chose Gaelic. So technically, after Brexit, English should be official in EU no more, unless Ireland switches to English.




Which one did Belgium choose?! :troll:


----------



## SIMSI (Mar 16, 2005)

I'd prefer proposal of a new system of signage developed by polish skyscrapers forum users. ^^










http://www.drogowskazclassic.pl/wezel.php


----------



## sotonsi (Feb 6, 2007)

Penn's Woods said:


> Although I assume English will remain an official language of the E.U. unless there's an Irexit.


Malta and Cyprus use it too as an official language at the national level.

I'd imagine English would remain as a working language. France wants French as _the_ working language of EU institutions with a passion, hence why it's pushing for English to be banned.

However as it is the most common second language and would be neutral once none of the big EU members speak it, then the EU-English near-pidgin dialect will remain (as the Financial Times explains) the language used by Estonians to speak to Portuguese, Greeks to Danes, etc in the institutions of the EU - even if the French get their wish.


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

sotonsi said:


> ...the EU-English near-pidgin dialect....


:lol:


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

g.spinoza said:


> Each country in Europe chose one language to be official, and one only: UK chose English, Ireland chose Gaelic. So technically, after Brexit, English should be official in EU no more, unless Ireland switches to English.


Not practical. No language is even close to English in terms of use as a second language. And given that Europe is super-aged (hence any sign in language policy takes decades to produce effects in current usage), I doubt that this will change.


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

Robi_damian said:


> Not practical. No language is even close to English in terms of use as a second language. And given that Europe is super-aged (hence any sign in language policy takes decades to produce effects in current usage), I doubt that this will change.


It is already happening:

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-losing-its-importance-in-europe-says-juncker


----------



## Robi_damian (Jun 15, 2008)

A statement by Juncker means very little, especially in the post-Lisbon era.

The thing is Europe has already made huge strides in getting English to be the dominant lingua franca and reversing that will take forever. Look at Italy. As a super-ageing country, it will be at least 2060 or so before shifts in language teaching will shape a significant share of the population. You can teach kids whatever language but there are so few kids in Italy it barely matters mid-term.

Lastly, science, higher education and travel/transport (to stay on topic) are already heavily geared towards English. As is the corporate world. That will not change. Simply because Europe is ever smallet in a world in which English ia ever more dominant.

Sent from my SM-J510FN using SkyscraperCity Forums mobile app


----------



## Penn's Woods (Apr 8, 2010)

g.spinoza said:


> It is already happening:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/politic...-losing-its-importance-in-europe-says-juncker



The end of the article seems to contradict Juncker, and the article seems to imply there was politics motivating his statement. (The article also mentions the official use of English by Ireland...)

I'm not trying to advocate for English in the EU; I'm a big fan of linguistic diversity, as I think should be clear to anyone who's read my posts here over the years, and what the EU does is none of my business anyway.... Just questioning your reading of the situation.

That said, IF the EU is going to choose something other than English as its working language, why assume that something would be French rather than German?


----------



## g.spinoza (Jul 21, 2010)

^^ I know, Juncker is pretty upset by the Brexit... however, he is still European Commission President and I think what he says must be taken quite seriously.

In any case, it doesn't mean that people around EU will stop speaking English: it will only mean that documents will not be drafted in English any more. Not a big deal in everyday's life.


----------



## aswnl (Jun 6, 2004)

If documents won't be drafted in English, then please also stop it in French and German.

French is a rotten language for me being Dutch. And German hastoocomplicatedverylongcombinedwordstoreadeasilybecausetheyalwayscontracteverything. 

So the EU has to provide her information in English. Just for the inhabitants of the tinier language areas.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

English will remain the lingua franca in Europe, even without the UK in the EU. It is the only language that is widely spoken as a second language in almost all countries, especially in business and tourism. 

It would be foolish for the EU to switch to French or German for communication.


----------



## 8166UY (Nov 19, 2011)

Plus the German and French will not give the other the pleasure.


----------

