Esg4 DG 2010

2010
Mare Nostrum
THE ESG4 GUIDELINES
Expert & Study Group 4
Design Principles and Message Recommendations for VMS
Version 5, October 2010

EASYWAY PROGRAMME
http://www.easyway-its.eu/
THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5
CONTENTS
Preface7
Introduction9
The ESG4 Guidelines, third gear within ESG4..9
Principles of design, general and specific ..9
General principles of design.11
Specific Principles of design.36
How to use the ESG4 Guidelines .39
Design recommendations ..42
WP1.1 Congestion, no exit ..44
WP4.1 Closed road, compulsory exit.51
WP4.2. Closed exit, alternative ways.58
WP6.1. Wind ..65
WP6.3.1. Slippery road due to snow/ice 72
WP6.3.2. Slippery road due to rain/water 79
Overview of existing recommendations within ESG4-Mare Nostrum.86
Current situations....... 86
Preview of future situations ...87
Annexes 88
Annex 1. WP.1.2. Congestion, exit available (draft case) 89
Annex 2. WP.1.3. Congestion on exit (draft case) .. 96
References103
PREFACE
Road signs have at least- a dual character, considering both drivers and the legal-technical
environment in which road signs are inscribed, an ergonomic and a normative side. Any action
pretending to improve road signs (how road signs are perceived, comprehended and how road
signs influence drivers) yet disregarding that elemental, dual character of road signs, will be
necessarily incomplete and probably useless, even if sophisticated, scientific procedures try to
safeguard such action.
This statement is particularly true within the European context of traffic signs, and specifically
within the domain of road signs innovation and harmonisation. Not researchers, but public
road administrations and road managers are those who know for real the new specific
road/traffic situations that demand new or improved signs. Nevertheless, such road signs must
enter and integrate a normative and legal context that is not only national, but truly
international in nature (e.g., the TERN): new signs must adopt and adapt to the existing road
signs semiotic structure and, if possible, must show their viability within the international
arena, its cross-cultural validity, particularly in Europe. Having said this, and in order to verify
the optimal character and applicability of road signs in a rigorous and credible way, the
presence of the scientific methods and knowledge is then crucial. Technical, institutional and
scientific knowledge must go orderly, hand in hand, when it comes to innovate and improve
road signs in Europe.
The current vision of road signs and new technologies within a complex sociocultural context
as the European bring us to a fundamental idea. Road signs are more than a pictogram that
drivers face. Road signs are, in our days, true cultural infrastructures: its function must be
integrated within a global project for road traffic and its use must be programmed with
reference to an international scale. Cooperation between large teams of technicians and
operators, public and private, engineers and human factor specialists is of fundamental
importance.
The words above are not utopian ruminations concerning the future. Such words summarize
the experience of the ES4-Mare Nostrum during the last years. The present ESG4 Guidelines
are perhaps an imperfect outcome of such way of doing, but the panel is complete. Our
recommendations come from true road operators (from different countries, private and
public) the ones that point to the catalogue of needs concerning VMS use. Our activity
integrates ambitious institutional affairs: let us remember that MIP2 Mare Nostrum VMS
(2003-2007) and the Working Party on Road Safety (WP.1) Small Group on VMS (2003-2008)
have shared international goals, ways (and experts) in order to come up with a Consolidated
Resolution on road signs (RE.2) in 2008. In this way, some VMS design rules (for example, the
FIVE principles) and new pictograms have been explained and promoted at the UNECE level in
order to reach the 1968 Vienna Convention. Consequently, and somehow ironically, for the
first time in decades, the UN recommendations on road signing shall feed European roads in
what concerns VMS, setting the stage to avoid otherwise rich but heterogeneous road signing
within the TERN. Quite obviously are European themselves who play the part. Last but not
7

least, empirical research has been ambitiously introduced within our modus operandi in order
to get answers that only data can give. We normally call it the 4-step method (four steps, four
test, from innovation to adoption) and we do nothing but follow the ways of other
international organizations on that matter (for example, ISO or ANSI).
We are ready to keep on. New members have joined the ESG4-Mare Nostrum that now
integrates 13 countries that send road operators and VMS specialist to join us. The EASYWAY
ESG4-Mare Nostrum and the WP.1 VMS Unit new cooperative frame is also on the way. That
link has revealed itself as particularly strategic because some ESG4 partners have ratified the
1968 Convention, others have just signed it and still others like to be aware of what UNECE has
to say concerning road signs. ESG4 recommendations will have to take into account practice
and feasibility and both bring the empirical search as a necessary tool the group will demand
and use in the coming months.
The ESG4-Mare Nostrum group feels positive about the present Guidelines. We feel a true
modesty though, because we understand that things (our recommendations) may improve a
lot, both in quantity and quality. But we are on the right track to it. We know the most
important secret for European enterprises of whatever type, even humble ones as road
signing. Achieving fluid communication between partners, elucidate the general, abstract
principles (not the particular customs) that will regulate our decisions and will be valid at the
European level, and of course, hard work.
EXPERT & STUDY GROUP 4-MARE NOSTRUM
INTRODUCTION
The ESG4 Guidelines, third gear within ESG4
Figure 1 is becoming a familiar way to describe the harmonisation process followed by ESG4Mare Nostrum, based on three main activities:
1. Partners share their views concerning a) what road/traffic events are important and have
priority and b) the specific VMS displayed by the partners. This information, provided by the
real users (VMS operators), constitutes the basic ground for appraising the main hindrances
towards harmonisation in Europe, be it lack of general design principles, of common
pictograms or message structures. The result is compiled in the WORKING BOOK (WB). It is
important to note that when new members come to ESG4-Mare Nostrum, the first task they
are required to assume is complete each of the road/traffic situations (currently totalling 34)
within the WB with the messages they use on VMS at home. The last version of the Working
Book has been recently issued (February, 2009) [1].
2. Partners solve the problems detected and put together in the WB. Potential solutions must
be international (European), following the spirit of documents as the 1968 Vienna Convention
on Road Signs and Signals i.e. logically adopted. Problem solving includes plain consensus or
empirical work. New signing formulations (pictograms, alphanumeric) are empirically studied
following the 4-step Method. Potential new members may decide either that the empirical
material concerning such and such formulation as revealed in the different countries is
convincing, or that they want to perform the studies at home, as did the rest of the group
members.
3. Partners propose harmonised VMS that
could be used in Europe considering the
specific road/traffic situation and the type
of VMS used (VMS showing text, one
pictogram + text; pictogram + text +
pictogram; two pictograms + text; full
matrix). That is the pragmatic contribution
that should be expected at the European
level concerning VMS design for a variety of
FIGURE 1. The three main components of the
road/traffic situations. The result is
VMS harmonisation process within ESG4
compiled in the document that is going to
be presented here: the ESG4 GUIDELINES. Both the Working Book and the ESG4 Guidelines
hold the same structure of road/traffic events.
Principles of design: general and specific

VMS harmonisation is reached when the same or similar VMS are displayed by partners
involved in the harmonisation process. For harmonisation on VMS displays to be achieved
many ground design parameters must be made explicit, pros and cons must be shared, and
9

then common design principles and informative elements must be adopted by all members the
same. There may be different ways to harmonise VMS (e.g. plain consensus, using dices, etc.),
the ESG4-Mare Nostrum team work on one type: VMS harmonisation based on the preeminence of international pictograms and focused on the European Common Space (TERN).
That means something. This is the main principle and determines the rest of sub-principles of
design applied. Doubts about design should be answered saying: apply the design principle
that promotes more international (less text based) VMS.
The absolute goal of ESG4 is working towards shareable, international VMS displays. The rest
of design parameters must emerge logically, in order to fit this main goal. The elementary
informative elements (pictograms, abstract alphanumeric characters, abbreviations, etc.), the
main structures for text distribution, the combination of pictograms and text, all must follow
design principles that maximize such a main goal. It may not be perfect for now, as many
informative elements are still lacking, and consequently some situations cannot be harmonised
yet, but it is a solid first step.
By acting this way we are only continuing the work done by main regulations and
recommendations like UNECEs 1968 Vienna Convention [2] and CEDRs FIVE (1997-2004) [3].
In addition, the intense work of ESG4-Mare Nostrum on VMS harmonisation is making it
possible to enlarge the rationale and principles of VMS design applied internationally by those
bodies. The period 2003-2008 saw the Mare Nostrum VMS (MIP2,
DG-TREN) and the Small Group on VMS (Working Party on Road
Safety, WP.1, United Nations) exchanging ideas and
recommendations in parallel, in order to gain momentum on VMS
harmonisation. The result is WP.1s Consolidated Resolution 2
(RE.2), issued in November 2008, including VMS design rules and
pictograms that shall amend the 1968 Convention, helping and
facilitating the work of VMS operators worldwide [4]. The present
ESG4 Guidelines will also make the most of RE.2 including some
pictograms that ease the VMS harmonisation task considerably.
A more local, yet important question refers to specific design
parameters on VMS. Two years ago, the idea of the group was
working only on general principles of VMS design. However we
FIGURE 2. VMS types
realised how hard translation was from this general scheme
included on the ESG4
(normally thought for pictogram-text VMS) to alternative, more
Guidelines
complex VMS devices (Fig. 2). Making general design principles fit
into each particular VMS type was a delicate task. If it was difficult for us, quite accustomed to
it, how difficult would it be to any VMS operator in Europe?
This idea made us consider four main VMS types using pictograms: pictogram-text
(traditional), pictogram-pictogram-text (Italian), pictogram-text-pictogram (Portugal, Spain,
Slovenia), and full matrix (MS4, UK, Republic of Ireland and The Netherlands). The idea was
to include the main VMS types in use within the group and to work on the way the elements
and the distribution should be in order to preserve the main principle of VMS internationality.
Eventually, text only VMS where also included. Obviously, text-only VMS have a local
10

applicability (they lack, pictograms, the international element par excellence) but text
structures and probably some simple alphanumeric could be harmonised as well.
General design principles for VMS are still the main issue, and this forms the main introductory
pages within these Guidelines. Specific design principles will deal with some concrete
questions, for example, pictogram-text distribution within certain VMS types (the problem of
type and location of the second pictogram ascribed to causes and recommendations).
Although many other micro-decisions affecting the design on the Guidelines will not be
explicitly mentioned, the end process will be summarised and made explicit on the
recommendations themselves.
General principles of design

The ESG4 Guidelines are built with respect to five general VMS design issues. The first issue
refers to aspects that must be considered even before using the VMS. The second issue
focuses on pictogram use. The third issue deals mainly with the use of alphanumeric
characters on VMS. The fourth issue refers to aspects concerning events location on VMS. The
fifth issue deals with selection rules to unify the use of regulatory function on VMS.
First issue: Considerations before using VMS

Switched on/switched off, a fundamental question
VMS are meant to inform about unexpected, changing circumstances affecting the road or
traffic. In general terms, the main purpose for the acquisition and use of information is
reducing uncertainty with respect to a given situation and a given (mobility) goal. In the VMS
road context the genesis of uncertainty is defined by the dichotomy of VMS being switched on
or off. When we see a VMS switched off we assume that, within the range of information
normally displayed by VMS, nothing is going to perturb our trip (e.g., heavy congestion,
diversion, closed lanes or roads, etc.). However, a VMS switched on generates uncertainty that
will only be reduced when we are near of the VMS so we can read and process the information
that is displayed, and act accordingly (e.g., reducing speed, increasing attention, and the like).
When many VMS are frequently switched on and displaying information, changes in the levels
of uncertainty in the mind of the driver happens very frequently too (according to the cycle
uncertainty increase (VMS is far from the event) - uncertainty reduction (VMS is read).
Then not only attention demands may overload drivers, but also drivers get emotionally
aroused quite frequently. When nearly all VMS display similar information (e.g., warning of
congestion, travel times, etc.) that cycle of uncertainty arousal-reduction can be processed by
drivers without thoroughly reading the content of the message (i.e., mechanically or
mindlessly): congestion as ever, travel times as ever. Once this point is passed, and
reaches the whole VMS system, the information display gets somehow spoiled. This stage can
be identified when additional gadgets are implemented (for example, flashing lights). When
drivers drive under such circumstances without adopting particular measures (attention,
speed) and nothing really happens, the risk of drivers not being prepared when it is really
necessary increases. Clearly, if the insufficient impact of VMS information (due to excess, here
is the paradox) do not bring drivers to adopt appropriate measures, the result is a more
dangerous road network.
11

PRINCIPLE 1.1 VMS should only be used if permanent signs cannot be used
and if credibility can be ensured.
PRINCIPLE 1.2 VMS should be used to display relevant traffic information as
required.
Use of tactical and strategic messages and road safety campaign related information
Following the previous point we should be careful with the information displayed on VMS
(which type, how frequently). We have to avoid displaying information that is unnecessary or
irrelevant, i.e., not directly related with the mobility and safety goals concerning drivers. We
have to avoid displaying information that does not refer to specific real-time traffic issues.
However, a known trend in Europe leads some road operators to use VMS as a complementary
mass media. Nowadays, we see VMS displaying generic road safety information, sometimes
linked to safety campaigns. Again, we have to distinguish these contents from the specific
information concerning road safety, linked to the immediate traffic context (the original
function that gave birth to VMS).
If, for whatever international, national or local
reasons, this is nevertheless going to happen, some
measures must be adopted. Drivers must learn to
distinguish which type of information they are looking
at: tactical and/or strategic messages, both subsumed
on the label traffic messages *17+, or road safety
campaign messages1. A careless, mindless reading
FIGURE 3. Traffic vs. campaign
might be applied to campaign messages, something
messages
that should never happen with traffic messages. The
alternative to distinguish them comes from the quality
and organisation of the informative elements themselves. Traffic messages should be
displayed with text justified to left besides a pictogram2. Campaign messages will show centred
text and no pictogram (Fig. 3). This recommendation refers to VMS messages which aim to
remind of certain driving rules (buckle up) that should not show a pictogram.
PRINCIPLE 1.3 Tactical and strategic messages should be displayed with the
text left justified beside a pictogram; campaign messages should show
centred text and no pictogram.
When campaign messages are displayed: some recommendations
Road safety campaign messages, if used, should take into account certain recommendations.
Not many studies have analyzed this problem [5] but the following rules should be followed:
1. VMS immediately in advance (i.e. less than 5km) of the first tactical or strategic VMS
message should remain blank (i.e. campaign messages should be avoided). Drivers
mind should be free of interferences from previous campaign messages when
expected to react to tactical or strategic messages
1
2
When using the term campaign messages we will always refer to road safety campaign messages.
The exception to the rule is vertical layout, when text is placed below the pictogram as in MS-4
12

2. The display of campaign messages should always stick to a limited time frame both in
terms of the day (e.g. two hours) and in terms of the exhibition period (e.g. two weeks)
and also considering the less intense traffic periods (e.g., weekends).
3. The display of campaign messages will always be linked to a specific road safety
campaign that is supported by variety of other media (press, radio, television,
billboards, etc.). In this way we gain an optimal recognition of the message with a
minimal degree of interference and time.
PRINCIPLE 1.4 Tactical or strategic messages always have priority over
campaign messages.
PRINCIPLE 1.5 VMS immediately in advance (i.e. less than 5km) of the first
tactical or strategic VMS message should remain blank (i.e. campaign
messages should be avoided).
PRINCIPLE 1.6 Campaign messages should follow certain restrictions: being
displayed out of dangerous contexts (e.g., low visibility, peak hours) and
during an appropriate time scale.
PRINCIPLE 1.7 Campaign messages should always follow a current, specific
road safety campaign present on other media as well.
Number of informative units per message
A VMS will communicate a message efficiently if it is readable, considering both the distance
between the driver and the VMS and the time he/she has to read it. We assume here that the
corresponding norms have been followed by VMS manufacturers3 and the driver has the right
visual acuity (either normal or corrected)4. Accomplishing both requisites allow us to answer
two fundamental questions: the reading distance that must be established and the number of
information units that can be read (more information units will need more reading time).
Driving speed, visual acuity, the location and height of signs on the VMS and the number of
information units displayed are the fundamental elements to consider. The height of the signs
displayed is important as it determines the reading distance5. VMS displaying characters of 22,
3
European Standard EN 12966-1: Vertical road signs Part 1: Variable Message Signs.
Annex III of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licenses indicates that Group 1
(drivers of vehicles categories A, B, B+E and subcategory A1 and B1) shall have a binocular visual acuity,
with corrective lenses if necessary, of at least 0,5 (6/12) when using both eyes together. Group 2 (C, C+E,
D, D+E and of subcategory C1, C1+E, D1 and D1+E) must have a visual acuity, with corrective lenses if
necessary, of at least 0,8 (6/7) in the better eye and at least 0,5 (6/12) in the worse eye.
5
There is another important parameter for this calculation: the height of the characters on the VMS
according to visual acuity. Although certain variability may be observed, all in all the literature suggests
adopting a normal distance to read a sign (in meters) of 6 by the character height (in centimetres) [7,
11, 12]. This nearly equates to what normally is considered standard visual acuity (6/6, or 1), i.e., being
able to read at a distance 687 times the height of characters in millimetres [CIE]. If we were to adopt
strictly the minimum requirements fixed by the 1991 European Directive (6/12, or 0,5) either the
character height should be more than doubled (68cm in the example above) for such drivers to enjoy a
window frame of 200 meters or the legibility window reconsidered, and diminished by 50% (100 meters
approximately). As a consequence, we should expect a percentage of the drivers population to slow
down in order to gain time to read the message. Being strict with the number of information units,
avoiding redundancy, etc., is quite necessary.
4
13

32 and 42 cm height will yield reading distances of 151, 220 and 288 m respectively. However
an adequate reading window will eliminate the last meters for people should not read the VMS
up beyond an angle of 10 degrees6. The resulting reading windows are now 115, 184 and 252
m. The question then is to relate speed (time) and the number of information units that can be
read. This ratio is normally expressed following a simplified formulation, derived from
empirical studies [6, 7]:
Where t is the time in seconds and n is the number of words one has to read entirely twice.
Reading three words twice bring us to a reading window of 3 seconds. With a reading window
of 5 seconds, and travel speed of 120km/h, messages must be short and simple. It is not
unusual to observe how drivers diminish speed as they get near VMS, particularly when more
text is displayed. A message with six words will require, in principle, at least 4 seconds
according to the formulation shown above. Slowing down to 100 km/h will yield an extra
second (reading messages more comfortably). This type of reactions (drivers reducing speed in
order to read long messages) are part of real traffic and we must be aware of it [8].
VMS display pictograms, abstract signs, numbers, words (e.g. descriptors, toponyms) and
abbreviations forming information units. A very important question is what we consider an
information unit to be. Dudek [9, 10] describes an information unit as the answer we obtain for
a question that is meaningful to drivers. An information unit may be made by one or several
words and pictograms. For example, if I ask to myself What happens? or What should I do?
the first question could be answered with congestion or wind and the second could be
answered with slow down or take exit A-23.
Table 1 shows examples of the number of words and information units for VMS displaying
characters height of 32 cm at different speeds. All in all, if a range of 4-7 words besides a
pictogram with travel speeds of 120km/h builds a frame of 2-4 information units per message
that should not be exceeded. Only exceptional cases (e.g., VMS displayed to drivers moving at
60km/h due to congestion, or snow) should alter this basic rule.
Driving speed
Reading time (characters of 32 cm height)
Maximum number of words: N = 3*(T-2)
Range of information units
60km/h
11.23 s
80km/h
8.42 s
100km/h
6.74 s
120km/h
5.61 s
25-27
17-19
12-14
8-10
6-10
4-8
3-6
2-4
TABLE 1. Number of information units that can be displayed at different travel speeds on VMS (example)
The final section that must be removed (R) is calculated according to the function R= (Mh)/tangent where M = location (height) where the VMS character is placed (e.g. 7.5m), h = driver
height while driving (e.g. 1.2m),
= maximum angle for reading (10 degrees). The resulting R is
approximately 36 meters.
7
This is an approximate parameter and other issues (word length) should be also considered. In
addition, one should remember that this calculation was originally developed for painted signs (not LED
signs). The general advice is to be careful and take a conservative approach on the number of words
displayed.
14

PRINCIPLE 1.8 Adjust the number of information units to basic traffic
(speed) and ergonomic parameters (visual acuity, legibility distance). VMS
on high speed roads should not display more than 2-4 information units per
message.
The need to avoid redundancy
Drivers have limited time to comprehend a message: unnecessary terms must be avoided,
including redundant terms. Customary practice of repeating the same pictogram twice (with
VMS able to display two pictograms), or repeating totally or partially with text the information
that is already showed by the pictogram, is not advisable (e.g. using words as caution,
danger, or look out besides a danger warning pictogram). If we want drivers to read the
whole information twice, we should facilitate this task.
The only exception to such rule is the use of
educational tabs or texts on a temporary basis [12]
i.e. additional text to support certain pictograms
that are new or whose meaning is not clear. So
when we are using pictograms that need some
help (e.g., the pictogram for bad visibility or
accident recently included within RE.2, etc.), we
introduce text whose meaning is partially
FIGURE 4. Redundancy vs.
redundant with that pictogram. In addition, the
Orthopaedics
reason for complementing the pictogram for bad
visibility (Fig. 4) could be a) we want the driver to understand the bad visibility is due to fog, b)
we want the driver to differentiate between fog and alternative problems of visibility such as
rain or smoke.
PRINCIPLE 1.9 Text-text, pictogram-text,
redundancy should be avoided.
or
pictogram-pictogram
PRINCIPLE 1.10 New pictograms may be temporarily accompanied by

(redundant) educational text.
Alternating messages
Alternating messages (i.e. a complete message on a single VMS which requires alternating
displays) should be avoided. VMS are displayed on high speed roads with limited reading
times. If, however, alternating messages are required to be used, it is not uncommon that the
rules avoid pictogram-text redundancy, limit the number of words to 5-7 are violated,
simply because more space is available. Only certain critical situations point to alternating VMS
as an adequate option, i.e. after making sure that drivers enjoy sufficient reading times and no
other option is available.
PRINCIPLE 1.11 Alternating messages on VMS should be avoided.
Flashing, blinking and scrolling messages on VMS
Flashing lights are normally meant to indicate immediate dangerous situations. However, not
every VMS is equipped with flashing lights, and the present Guidelines suggest ways to
differentiate between immediate dangers and other traffic situations with standard equipment
15

(see 4th issue: location formulations, p. 26). In addition, flashing lights on VMS should be used
with caution, exceptionally and precisely. By using flashing lights in conjunction with VMS
messages, we introduce a particular category to drivers: messages that really are important
(with flash) vs. other messages. The need to use flashing lights therefore indicates a poor
management of VMS in general: too many messages, not always functional or useful make
drivers disregard VMS.
PRINCIPLE 1.12 To ensure effectiveness, flashing lights should not be
ordinarily activated, being used only under critical circumstances and for a
reduced set of road/traffic events. Flashing lights are not substantive VMS
components.
Motion effects concerning the information displayed on VMS (blinking, scrolling) are a delicate
question. Clearly, as flashing lights, its main function should be attracting attention to the
information displayed. Again, this very additional need (reinforce attention to VMS) involves a
poor use of signing devices that are variable in nature (and should attract attention
themselves, simply by being switched on). In addition, the very need to read and interpret
evasive information makes it difficult and dangerous while driving: to keep track and attend
to other circumstances should kept the main percentage of attention resources.
But scrolling and blinking have additional drawbacks: diminishing the time the information is
available for reading. Scrolling is clearly unadvised for two additional reasons: it may be used
to display much more information that can be hold in a panel, and may force memory beyond
easy limits. Blinking is normally applied to pictograms, not text. It can also be problematic,
calling for unexpected optical effects, although partial blinking (i.e., only some parts of the
pictogram blink, for example the red frame goes on and off) has been recently tested [18]. The
implications of the use of this display strategies for certain groups (drivers with minor visual
impairments, old drivers, etc.), during the driving task should be thoroughly studied before
recurring to them. For that reason, the advise in the past has been to avoid blinking and
scrolling [6].
PRINCIPLE 1.13 Blinking and scrolling effects are not advised on VMS.
Second issue: Use of pictograms on VMS

The selection of the main pictogram
Building up adequate variable signing with regards to ergonomic parameters for use by traffic
control centres, and correct from the point of view of the internationality of information
displayed, is only possible by being extremely careful with the selection of pictograms. The
main pictogram will determine a) which other informative elements (alphanumeric characters,
secondary pictograms) will be used and b) the resulting informative structure of the VMS.
The pictogram is the main element in the whole communication chain as it synthesizes
complex road/traffic situations can be read twice as far as text and makes use of a potentially
universal language: pictures [13].
To make sure that the main pictogram selected makes use of the most supra-linguistic
communicative resources, two features must be pursued: specific and consequence-oriented
16

pictograms. Specific pictograms should have pre-eminence (compared to generic ones)
because they transmit more information and need less complementary text in order to
communicate something. Pictograms that are
consequence-oriented
must
have
priority
(compared to cause-oriented ones) because the
former show information that is more important in
the timing of actions that must be followed by
drivers.
Normally,
consequence-oriented
pictograms are also highly specific ones (Fig. 5).
Such criteria are fundamental. Sometimes, a
FIGURE 5. Main parameters on
number of different official legal pictograms are
pictogram selection
available and could be used for the same event:
then appropriate criteria for selecting pictograms reduce heterogeneity. If all information
going after the main pictogram complements its meaning and if the main pictogram selected
in order to portray the road/traffic is not appropriate, the driver will confront heterogeneous
information that is unnecessary and easy to avoid. Selecting the right pictogram makes extra
words unnecessary.
PRINCIPLE 2.1 Consequence-oriented, specific pictograms should be
preferred over generic, cause-oriented ones.
VMS that display more than one pictogram
By selecting consequence-oriented, specific pictograms we need less text to complement its
meaning. We now have to think about these two features not only within danger warning
pictograms but considering pictograms in general. Also, because new VMS are able to display
more than one pictogram we must think of a way to prioritise and harmonise them too.
What is cause and what is consequence in all related to signing information sometimes is clear,
but sometimes is relative. An accident may be the cause of congestion (consequence). But
congestion may be the cause of setting up a speed limit (consequence)8. Looking at the three
main signing functions (regulatory, danger warning, informative), we see that some functions
are pure consequence,
while others are mixed.
Regulatory messages are
the most compelling ones.
The consequence for drivers
is clear: to do what they say.
Danger
warning
signs
FIGURE 6. Consequences and causes within the information chain
demand
more
generic
actions (e.g., be attentive, slow down). According to this, and given the highly specific nature
of regulatory messages, they should have priority in the process of pictogram selection (Fig. 6).
We may think about accidents as a result of congestion, but this is not pertinent in terms of the goal
the information displayed on VMS to drivers should have. VMS display information for drivers to
optimize their adaptation to road traffic. Telling them an accident has happened due to a congestion is
more entertainment than efficient information in terms of real-time driving.
17

That means that when two pictograms are available for managing a road/traffic situation the
regulatory pictogram(s) should go first, then danger warning pictograms and then informative
(however, see the fifth issue below to screen difficulties concerning the use of regulatory
pictograms on VMS).
The selection of the main pictogram follows clear rules: the pictogram that is more
consequence oriented and specific describing the situation will be selected because it will need
less complementary text. It is also clear that the text or whatever information we may need
(nature of event, location) will logically follow the main pictogram. In principle, the main
pictogram should normally be placed first considering the order by which we normally read the
information: from left to right, from to top to bottom and text should follow it naturally.
But there is another fundamental parameter to take into account, the VMS layout itself. Not all
VMS allow for the same pictogram distribution. Some show two pictograms then text, others
show pictogram-text-pictogram, others may show information as whished.
We have to remember the core philosophy followed here for signing. We could call it PICTO+
language. The essence of VMS harmonisation lies there. In any VMS message there is a main,
coordinated set of pictogram-and-text that must be optimised, minimising the use of text.
Supra-linguistic elements must be used in order to promote comprehension at the
international level. This coordinated set of pictogram-and-text (PICTO+) is what really counts
besides the particular features of each layout (Fig. 7). See section on specific design principles
(p. 28) to grasp the specific rules of pictogram distribution according to each VMS type.
FIGURE 7. PICTO+ philosophy applied to different layouts
In sum, regulatory signs are the most specific

and consequence oriented ones. The
structure of German VMS designed to
manage speeds according to incidents
reflects this point (Fig. 8). Here the
prohibition (60km/h) is the specific
consequence coming from the danger that is
the cause (congestion). The German example
FIGURE 8. Consequence-cause in German VMS
is not only good in terms of consequencescauses. It also shows on simple, effective VMS designs based on pictograms and not on words.
18

Danger warning signs are not so specific, compared to regulatory, and normally call for a set of
generic actions on the part of drivers: increase caution, attention, slow down, etc. Informative
signs do not always apply equally to all drivers, and conformity to informative indications
(recommendations) is relatively low. The location of pictograms on VMS that can display more
than one pictogram should consider these parameters regarding function and effect of road
signs.
PRINCIPLE 2.2 There is a functional hierarchy on VMS messages: first
regulatory, then danger warning, then informative, and pictograms should
be selected accordingly.
Including new and/or re-designed pictograms
One of the main problems that must be
confronted when managing VMS is the lack
of pictograms for all road/traffic situations
that require them. This problem has a lot to
do with the relatively short period of
implementation and maturation of variable
signs, ascribed to the last 20 years or so, if
we compare them to the majority of
FIGURE 9. Icons vs. symbols on the 1968
traditional posted traffic signs standardised
Convention
within the period 1909-1968 [14]. VMS
opened management and exploitation possibilities that had not been confronted before (e.g.
divert traffic for six hours) and these possibilities require new pictograms.
When a new traffic sign needs to be designed several options are available: utterly innovating
or recurring to a kind of graphic syncretism or fusion. The 1968 Convention shows both
alternatives. We see here new signs without previous referents and we may, following
American Philosopher Charles S. Peirce, categorise two main types of signs, icons (pictograms
with many resemblances to the real referent) and symbols (pictograms with a relationship with
the referent that must be learned). Figure 9 shows examples of these two categories.
Ideally, all traffic signs should be icons, but it is difficult to find universal, pure icons in order to
describe road situations: the exact traffic situation must be determined and drawn in a simple
form so it can be represented with the basic tools of the 1968 Convention (shapes, colours,
forms, etc.) [14, 15]. Such constraints must be coupled with others coming from VMS
themselves: matrix resolution of 32x32 or 64x64 pixels (5x7 or 8x11 for the alphanumeric) and
using 4 or 5 colours. Given all difficulties mentioned, easy going symbols (not icons) are also
frequently used too.
The alternative to radical innovation is derivation, or building new signs making the most of
existing ones. This is not uncommon on the 1968 Convention catalogue (Fig. 10). Forming signs
with known signs that are easy to learn is an interesting option, something similar to the use of
composed words (paperwork, mastermind, gunshot). Two examples of derivation are of
interest here, addition (putting several pictures together) and translation (using the same
picture within a different frame, changing its main signing function). VMS need to make the
19

most of both types of signs, either the new ones
(e.g., ghost driver, icons if possible) or the derived
ones (e.g., different ways to indicate closure and
diversion options).
Pictograms reporting danger
This Guideline includes new signs that have been
obtained mainly by deriving, either by addition or
by translation9. Putting pictures normally used
with a danger warning red triangle, within a frame
made for informative signs, is developing signs by
translation (Fig. 11). This procedure yields some
practical benefits too (without triangle, pictures
may be enlarged by a 25%, seen and read sooner).
FIGURE 10. Signs on the 1968 Convention

obtained by derivation
But the most important benefit is helping drivers to create more adequate and realistic
expectations about what is going on or what is going to happen on the road, sooner or later.
Traditionally, the driving task has been conceived as a goal oriented task [16]. Information
classified as danger warning (near, for example 0-5km) would concern tactical and operative
driving actions. Here the driver must prepare specifically for the situation he/she is
approaching to soon,
and
the
abilities
involved
concern
manoeuvring,
steering, controlling
speed, etc. On the
other hand, reporting
danger (far, e.g.,
beyond 5-10 km) may
FIGURE 11. Sings obtained by translation for use on VMS (after [4])
be assumed as a mere
anticipation with time (pre-warning) and can also be studied for alternative plans (see fourth
issue below). After seeing such signs, the driver can proceed normally, but he/she should learn
that a margin for additional actions exists (e.g., changing route, stop and rest, asking in a petrol
station, etc.). In fact, provided that drivers learn well the difference between both formats,
managers could think of alternative possibilities for reporting signs, indicating events that are
far away in space (road works in 20km) but also in time (road works here tomorrow
morning). It all opens new expectations and more possibilities for traffic management.
Some other road signs included within the ESG4 Guidelines have been built by addition and
refer particularly to the domain of road capacity. Following Nenzi [17], some refer to tactical
actions (hard shoulder use) and some to strategic actions (road/exit closed-available routes).
At this point the reader should consider this statement also as an advance of the formal aspects
concerning pictograms that will be included in future editions of the ESG4 Guidelines, according to
Principle 2.3.
20

Hard shoulder use
Provided that essential conditions for lanes are assured
(wide enough, robust, etc.) hard shoulder availability
involves at least three graphic elements: a) hard shoulder
may be used, b) end of the use of hard shoulder, c) hard
shoulder may not be used (Fig. 12). Compared to pictures
previously used for that matter, this seems to be a better
solution, particularly for on-site signing devices. The
alternative is extending the traditional cross-arrow
scheme to the hard shoulder, making the most of such
signing infrastructures within urban areas and
surroundings.
FIGURE 12. Signs for Hard

Shoulder Use (after RE.2 2008)
Road/exit closed and alternative ways

The possibility of redirecting traffic flows in order to optimise existing alternatives is one of the
main goals of variable signing. One of the most important situations refers to road closures
that promote a mandate, particularly when road works or maintenance operations allow road
managers to forecast and redirect flows. VMS can then play an important role in anticipating
the situation in the mind of drivers. Obviously, additional posted signs and beacons are
expected on the very same problem area. The last RE.2 [4] included an alternative for such
situations, following the examples of Italy and France (Fig. 13) and results from the SOMS
Project [18]. One of the signs indicates the road is closed and the next exit is compulsory. The
other group of signs indicate a closed exit and the possible alternatives available: continue and
take exit before/after the closed exit.
FIGURE 13. Options to road/exit closure (after RE.2 2008)
PRINCIPLE 2.3 In principle, the catalogue in the 1968 Convention on Road

Signs and Signals and the recommendations on the Consolidated Resolution
on Road Signs and Signals (RE.2, November 2008), shall provide the basis
for the pictograms to be used.
Third issue: Use of alphanumeric elements on VMS

Organising informative elements within the alphanumeric (text) area
The Framework for a Harmonized Implementation of VMS in Europe or FIVE (1997-2004) is a
principal European reference in terms of variable signing and is part of our recommendations
concerning VMS design [3]. One of the most important aspects of FIVE refers to the place that
each informative element (pictogram, alphanumeric) occupies on the VMS according to the
signing function it performs (regulatory, danger warning, informative). The idea is organising
the text information beside the pictogram according to the natural reading order (from left to
right, and top to bottom). In this way the interpretation of text is supported by the meaning of
21

the pictogram on the left. We have named it the PICTO+ coordinated set of pictogram-andtext.
Danger warning messages are the most frequently used on VMS. FIVE proposal for that
messages is that the first text line shows information concerning the nature of event, the
second text line distance or length, and the third line information concerning the cause or an
advice. However, such recommendation must confront three problems that make them
incongruent. On the one hand, the recommendation is not very subtle in terms of what can or
cannot be considered nature of event and/or cause of the event in particular. On the other
hand, it is not very flexible concerning location formulations of distance or length and
combinations (could length of congestion not be considered nature of event too?). Finally, it is
somehow unrealistic in terms of the place that each category (nature, location, advice, cause)
must occupy on the VMS i.e. the number of characters per line would need to be very high in
order to keep this order strictly and without variations.
To address these issues with the FIVE recommendations, these Guidelines adopt the following
three rules:
1. It is more realistic and opens more possibilities to arrange the information according to
an order (not to a location) in the first, second and third lines of text.
2. Sometimes we may distinguish between nature of event and cause and sometimes we
cannot.
3. Length may sometimes be seen as nature of event (e.g., congestion).
Locating the information on the panel: flexibility within a given order
We read information from left to right, from top to bottom. According to this, FIVE
recommends to locate the information on the VMS following a structure in which the
additional information concerning the nature of event (e.g., text that nuances the pictogram)
goes to the first line, the information concerning distance-length (or mixed formulations)
would occupy the second line and the information relative to advice or cause would occupy
the third line.
The advantages for such strict placement of information are clear: on the one hand, the driver
gets used to follow a logical order of information according to its importance (top to bottom):
in this way an order of priority is proposed to drivers. On the other hand, the driver could
guess about the type of information simply by the position it occupies on the VMS. Even in
foreign countries, the inferential process is facilitated to drivers.
However, this recommendation, following a strict location according to element category,
faces a problem: it will only work well with a large (infinite) number of characters per line.
However, this is not really the case; we normally work with a rank of 12-20 characters per line.
The result is that the recommended positions get invariably spoiled. We may think, for
instance, about the use of qualitative distance-length with geographical locators (city or exit
names): ideally it would take one line, but normally it takes no less than two lines on the panel
(see table 6).
Still building on FIVE recommendations, a more realistic alternative would be to follow such
criteria in a more flexible way, as a general criterion to order information units on the VMS.
More than a strict location, we should follow an order for locating (Fig. 14). This algorithm
22

would better integrate some of the most habitual events on VMS. The fundamental issue is to
make clear which type or category of information goes first. For example, one message could
present no nature of event if the pictogram is good enough (suppose congestion) and take the
second and third lines for indicating distance-length. Or, a long advice could occupy the second
and third line if no distance-length is needed and nature of event fits well on the first line.
The examples mentioned propose situations that exhaust the number of available lines. But it
could also happen that not so many elements were necessary, leaving some lines empty. There
are two options then, occupy the lines following the order (and leave the last line empty) or
return to the basic FIVE proposal (try to locate the information on the corresponding line
within the order). Our recommendation would be to return to FIVE when possible, particularly
when the gap allowed between two lines of text could contribute to improve the interpretation
of text and the VMS as a whole.
FIGURE 14. Building alphanumeric information according to order
Nature of danger vs. Cause of danger

Sometimes there is a clear difference between what is nature of danger and cause of danger: it
happens when road/traffic
events are independent and
happen consecutively. Then the
link consequence-cause is clear
and FIVE recommendations are
correct. For instance, an
accident, road works or lane
closures cause congestion. Using
our rules on page 21 (based
FIGURE 15. Consequence & Cause according to FIVE
upon amendments to FIVE
recommendations), what is consequence (congestion) should be indicated with the pictogram
and what is cause (road works, accident, lane closure) must occupy the third line. Figure 15
shows an example.
We may appreciate how adequate this scheme is by looking at the distortion introduced by a
different disposition, locating the cause first (Fig. 16). Here the distance cannot be interpreted
unambiguously with respect to both events. Only if drivers
were already within the congestion, the message could be
interpreted as congestion and road works till Siegsdorf.
However, figure 15 it is still better in terms of what really is
FIGURE 16. Changing FIVE
interesting for drivers: knowing the congestion length (the
basic schemes
real thing), not the length of the road works.
23

There are, however, certain cases related with weather events in which the different nature of
event/cause is not clear because both happen simultaneously and are located at the same
distance e.g. slippery road caused by snow or caused by water pools. In addition, in order to
describe the event on the pictogram (consequence) we normally have to say something else
about the nature of the event
because the pictogram does not
really describe it very specifically (Fig.
17). This simultaneity introduces a
discontinuity
within
FIVEs
consequence-cause schema. Even
knowing
the
recommendation
locate the cause on the third line,
FIGURE 17. Driving and weather related events:
when we deal with weather related
simultaneous cause & consequence
events road operators normally
locate the cause on the first line. In such cases, nature of event and cause share many
dimensions. When the cause is also an element that nuances the pictogram meaning and,
when its presence is simultaneous (same distance), supporting text to explain the pictogram
can be placed in the first text area of the VMS i.e. Information Unit 1 includes picto PLUS text.
One more reason to locate text complementing the pictogram meaning in the first text area
comes from events that are difficult to locate with accuracy and go better with qualitative
locations (Fig. 18). When consequence-cause are simultaneous we may integrate, without
semantic problems, length formulations on the first line, then text (e.g., ice=8km,
smoke=2km) when the VMS is within the event itself.
FIGURE 18. Cause of slippery road located on the first line
Consider length as part of nature of event

FIVE recommends locating distance/length on the second line. Some weather events show
how length can be considered nature of event as well, but probably the most compelling case
is congestion. Tests undertaken by the ESG4-Mare Nostrum group show that around 70% of
drivers from several countries read congestion = 10 km as congestion length of 10 km. This
is another exception to FIVEs norm that can be generalised to all road/traffic events where
length is part of the event. It should then be located in the first line too.
In sum:
1. It is unavoidable to be flexible with the locating information criterion, although within
a fixed order: nature of event-location-advise-cause. The final assignments of space to
lines will depend on the needs and possibilities according to VMS type.
2. It is convenient to distinguish between simultaneous causes (almost always weather
or circumstantial events conditioning visibility and road adherence) and causes that
are consecutive with respect to the event (here the location differs from the event
caused by them). Simultaneous causes (snow, ice, smoke, rain) are understood as
24

nature of event and located first, whereas consecutive causes (accidents, roadworks,
lane closures, etc.) are located third on the VMS or are shown by the second pictogram
(according to VMS type).
3. It is convenient to categorise length as information relative to nature of event, in
particular quantitative length of congestion, and not as independent information (as
distance is). It should be preferably located as part of the first information element
(which may cover picto and text).
PRINCIPLE 3.1 There is a fixed order for placing Information Units (IU) on
the VMS depending on the message type i.e. IU1 Nature of Event; IU2
Location; IU3 Advice ; IU4 -Cause.
POSITION
ON VMS
ESG4 Recommendations for Message Type

Regulatory
Danger warning
Reporting danger or
informative
LINE 1
Pictogram suffices
as nature of event
LINE 2
LINE 3/4
A/C
A/C
10
TABLE 2. Recommendations for locating information units on different signing functions on VMS (N =
nature of event, L = location, A = advice or additional information, C = cause)
PRINCIPLE 3.2 If there is more space on the VMS than required information
elements needed for the informative units, it is up to the operator to assign
blank spaces on the alphanumeric/text area of the VMS in order to
maximise clarity and comprehension, yet placing each element following its
consecutive order.
PRINCIPLE 3.3 For simultaneous causes, text to support the main pictogram
should be placed at the start of the text area as part of IU1. For consecutive
causes, such text should be located in IU3.
PRINCIPLE 3.4 If used, quantitative length should be placed in the first
unit11, which may integrate pictogram and text.
Recommended European terminology and abbreviations Europeanisms
Ideally, pictograms and abstract alphanumeric characters (e.g. an arrow) or (nearly) universal
text (numbers, abbreviations) would allow for VMS to be read by anybody. While research and
practice tries little by little, with uneven success, to furnish such shared elements, many labels
within the alphanumeric area are still local.
10
In text-only VMS the location shall be placed first, then nature of event.
Mainly referred to length and congestion. To date congestion has been the only pictogram receiving
empirical validation besides quantitative length formulations (= 5 km; 5 km).
11
25

We may distinguish two types of abbreviations. On the one hand, there are a number of
standardised international abbreviations. On the other hand, we have ad hoc abbreviations
(table 3). The VMS context should keep the better comprehended and shorter ones.
Some orthographic considerations are also worth mentioning now, particularly concerning the
use of uppercase or lowercase, use of dots and singular/plural. Abbreviations are normally
written with the same font as the abbreviated word (Her Majesty, H.M.; example gratia, e.g.),
although using both is not infrequent. The general rule is writing dot (.) after abbreviations,
but there are exceptions, particularly measure units (Kg for kilogram) and cardinal points (N for
North). Another important question is that measure units are invariable (1m, 25m). Most
abbreviations can be written in lower case even in rudimentary VMS with 5x7 pixels per
character, as it is already common with travel times (min)12.
PRINCIPLE 3.5 The abbreviations and/or abstract alphanumeric characters
or symbols shown in table 3 below can be recommended for VMS use on
the alphanumeric/text zone.
CONCEPT
Kilometre/kilometres
Metre/metres
Hour/hours
Minute/minutes
Ton
Kilogram
ABBREVIATION
KM or km
M or m
H or h
MIN or min
T or t
KG or kg
Equal
From A to B
Exit
Information
Parking
Park-and-Ride
BUS
VIA
DIRECTION
=
AB
i
P
P+R
BUS
VIA or via
13
=>
TABLE 3. Standard (blue) and non standard abbreviations
Fourth issue: Strategies to locate road/traffic events

The problem of distance on posted danger warning signs and on VMS
A fundamental issue for road operators is drivers reacting to dangerous events appropriately.
The problem is that, contrary to posted signs, VMS may say something about potential dangers
that are very near (say 500m) but also about dangers that happen quite far away (e.g. 20km).
What can we expect from the driver concerning caution, attention and readiness to act then?
Originally, danger warning pictograms were thought as an answer to problems concerning the
design or the topography of the network: non levered roads, dangerous bends, crossings, etc.
[14]. Posted danger warning pictograms are virtuous twice, as they both specify and anticipate
12
A more detailed account of what the SOMS project call Europeanisms may be found in *15+
Although this abstract symbol for Direction is well known in France, some alternative studies will be
undertaken to confirm it as a valid sign.
13
26

a danger, so drivers may act safely (being more attentive in a crossing, moderating speed in a
bend, and so on).
However, it will happen like this within limits: in preparing to act safely, drivers will have to
take into account distance to the danger. Posted danger warning signs have been normally
successful with respect to that issue (anticipation) precisely due to its fixed relationship
concerning the danger they anticipate on the road network (e.g. dangerous bend). Given basic
human parameters concerning attention and perception (e.g. visual acuity, driving speed) we
may obtain a rank of distances in order to locate the danger warning sign on the road both
considering the driver (when he/she will see and read the sign) and the danger itself (the sign
will give the driver enough time to proceed safely). For example according to the 1968
Convention danger warning signs are posted between 150m and 250m before the road section
where the danger is expected. So, the anticipation distance for dangerous event is relatively
short.
Other norms also specify quite short timings. For example, specific speed limits (e.g. due to
roadworks) are supposed to be reminded (refreshed) every 1 minute to drivers14, and
indications for motorway exits are placed 500m and 1000m before. What is important to note
is that all that regulations introduce the basic parameters that shape drivers expectations
concerning informative indications on the road and the time available to react to them.
As a rule, what is potentially dangerous is located soon after the sign (normally, only seconds
away). Note: for road traffic events and situations to which we should readily react, or events
that should catch our attention all the time, we have an approximate space-time rank that is
defined by the informative structure of the road network. Road signs and indications create an
idea and accustom drivers to what is imminent and immediate, in time and distance, and it
oscillates between the few seconds and the minute (or two minutes), or between the hundred
meters and the few kilometres (something between two and four kilometres). These
parameters conform, explicitly or implicitly to a general structure of actions and reactions on
the road network (according to type of road) to which drivers get used to, and contribute to
shape their expectations, the ideas and categories they have about what is far-near, longshort, slow-fast within the traffic context (table 4).
Speed
Distance to
80km/h
100km/h
120km/h
React
17m
21m
25m
Slow down
27m
49m
78m
From danger-warning
to dangerous event in...
Stop
44m
70m
103m
total
88m
140m
206m
150m
6,8s
5,4s
4,5s
250m
11,3s
9,0s
7,5s
Distance
travelled
in
1 min
1333,3m
1666,7m
2000m
From
panel to
exit
1000 m
45s
36s
30s
TABLE 4. Time, distance and basic driving operations within road traffic
This use of posted signs may influence VMS. On the one hand, because posted signs are
overwhelmingly present compared to VMS, the rate is millions to thousands. The problem here
is the space-time dimension: facing a road event, how long to retain the information, how long
to keep attention high. VMS are conspicuous devices, but how long for in the mind of drivers?
VMS are more flexible than posted signs but have also problems. Posted signs context is highly
14
Interestingly, 1 minute is the standard upper limit for short term memory
27

structured. The VMS events that can be displayed are quite diverse (compare fog with road
works, congestion with wind).
Distance is here an important question. We should be aware of the relatively narrow span for
danger warning posted signs to distance VMS-event (150m-250m), that is never known before
hand on VMS. This fact has always been considered an advantage i.e. we can indicate
congestion 15 km before and more. However, driving 15 km at 120 km/h takes about 8
minutes (table 5) and this quadruples the standard learned with posted danger warning signs.
How do drivers deal with this excess when facing potential road dangers?
minutes
metres
1
2.000
2
4.000
3
6.000
4
8.000
5
10.000
6
12.000
7
14.000
8
16.000
TABLE 5. Relation of time and distance at 120km/h
In general terms, the main goal of information acquisition and use is uncertainty reduction. A
switched on VMS generates uncertainty that is reduced as soon as we read and process the
information it displays and act accordingly, for example, reducing speed, increasing alert, etc.
When many VMS display information many times the process of activation and deactivation of
uncertainty is frequent, and this involves a risk of attention and emotion overload on the road.
When this point is reached, in terms of the whole system, the information display moves
towards a spoil threshold. If the insufficient impact of information (due to excess, not to
lack) did not make the driver to take appropriate specific actions, the road system grows a
little more dangerous.
It may happen that the presence of danger warning messages is too high, even on VMS. This
fact is worsened by the space-time range that many road operators consider appropriate
today to display danger warning messages, perhaps too wide (say from 0 to 20km or more).
This wide range of anticipation has an impact in the rate of danger warning messages
displayed (if the range was from 0 to 10 km, the potential number of switched on VMS would
be smaller). The final result is that drivers are always seeing information on VMS, particularly
road works and congestions, which are located near or far.
In sum, the problem is:
The high presence of messages informing about something on the road network
The high presence of messages of the same function (e.g. danger warning)
The wide space-time range within which such messages, particularly danger warning
ones, are displayed, and this due to two reasons:
o
This wide range multiplies the number of messages present on the road
This involves drivers keeping alert levels that are beyond the standard
commonly promoted by posted signs.
The proposal is adopting several measures for VMS displaying dangerous events:
Limiting the anticipation range for danger. Using danger warning on VMS (with red
triangle) only when dangerous events are near. What is near involves establishing it
28

in operative terms in the high speed context. This rank could be, with 120km/h speed
flows, approximately between 0 and 5km, or between 0 and 2.5 minutes.
Not specifying distance on the panel. Better not to give drivers the opportunity of
reckoning or calculating how near the dangerous event is (500m, 2km). Rather,
he/she should get used to take measures when danger warning pictograms (i.e. those
with red triangles) are shown (moderate speed, increase attention, etc.) and to expect
that the danger will appear soon, close. Other drivers should proceed equally and the
collective way of managing such situation would reinforce a safe response by all.
Support formally the distinction between danger warning and reporting danger.
Danger warning displays have a clear format: it is a traffic sign framed by a red
triangle. The proposal is to preserve the standard warning sign for close events (< 5km)
by removing the red triangle for events that are far from the VMS (i.e. > 5km).
Figure 19. Distance and type of information [14; p. 35)
In sum, some reasons support that messages anticipating dangerous but far away events
should be referred to a range of distance, and should adopt a format and design different to
messages anticipating dangerous near events. It is only normal that this consideration (warn
vs. report about danger) did not enjoy parallel within the 1968 Convention catalogue up to
now because such catalogue was originated under a static consideration of road problems and
road information. This far-near dichotomy is more relevant to VMS.
The ESG4-Mare Nostrum group echoes the WP1 Small Group on VMS proposal present in RE.2
(2008) for five signs (see figure 9), that is, to distinguish danger warning and reported danger
both in formal and functional terms. The goal of such distinction is giving drivers appropriate
keys to decipher which messages require an immediate and special attention, direct and
unavoidable, and which messages require just awareness of the situation that may or may not
apply to his/her trip (e.g., he/she may deviate or stop before).
For drivers to be able to distinguish between these two situations, we need to provide them
with the adequate categorisation elements, with the characteristics that allow them to
determine if the situation belongs to one set or the other. The two characteristics are:
Graphical representation of danger: with or without red triangle.
Indication of specific distance to event: absent or present.
29

Locating road/traffic events: space and time-based formulations
Two main alternatives appear in order to locate road/traffic events: space and time. Ordinary
language uses both: I am only 500 metres away, Ill be there in 10 minutes. We locate
ourselves relative to goals, events and places in both ways. Space-based location formulations
are the most common in road information: distance, length and distance-length combinations.
In the last years, travel times have gained acceptance by road managers and public alike,
normally displayed with congestion. It is possibly a growing trend adopting other formats (e.g.,
Roadworks here tomorrow, or Roadworks here next week, etc.).
Locating road/traffic events: space-based formulations
VMS recommended on the ES-4 Guidelines for the different road/traffic situations (congestion,
road works, etc.) follow a structure according to three main relationships: VMS that are far,
near or within the event. The group experience shows that difficulties for harmonising emerge
sometimes from the different perspectives adopted by members concerning location, so ESG4
members decided to make this perspective explicit. Two main issues derive:
Members should agree, in gross terms, about what is near and what is far
Members should consider the fit of the different location formulations and the specific
range of events (e.g., weather related events are not easy to locate)
Obtaining a priori formulations for locating events should help to build the Guidelines. By
agreeing on the recommended formulations, members adopt a pragmatic point of view and
avoid too specific cases.
The Group follows the view of other international road signing agreements, for example, the
1968 Vienna Convention. Only location formulations that seem to be usable and appropriate
for all European drivers the same are proposed (table 4).
In principle, a focus is made on the formulations themselves, not on the specific content.
Currently, not many location formulations using abstract symbols to replace text are
understood equally across Europe. Most revert to natural language (text) to communicate
their meaning. Obtaining abstract formulations for communicating that meaning is the second
step. This solution is mostly empirical testing and members of ESG4-Mare Nostrum are
currently testing a range of alternative abstract formulations.
Table 4 articulates three main parameters:
Traffic events vs. weather related events. Clearly, roadworks or congestion can be located
with a different accuracy than wind or fog. The possibilities vary according to the means of
road operators, but few would (should?) dare to announce certain events too accurately.
Weather related events move and change quickly and are quite unpredictable in the short
term. The recommended space-based location formulations must consider this and give a
practical range of applicable formulations according to traffic vs. weather events.
Far, near, within. The relative position of the VMS with respect to the event is essential,
particularly for road safety. One of the goals here is restating and preserving the impact of the
red danger warning triangle as a tool for warning. Also location formulations should follow this
principle, particularly for near events. The general view is that: a) near should be near, and this
is a compromise that Traffic Control Centres should guarantee; b) Drivers dont have to play
30

with known distance parameters with near events. Provided that near is consistently near
drivers must learn to expect the event soon and increase attention accordingly. This is why too
accurate formulations are avoided: not using distance at all, giving a range with a generic
origin (till location A) and using certain advice (slow down, moderate speed) should
accustom drivers to care and worry about safety parameters. Location formulations for VMS
within the event follow similar premises.
Far away events permit a broader set of location formulations for all events. Here the goal is
increasing possibilities for traffic managers concerned by mobility.
The general set of location formulations on table 6 is re-evaluated and limited or expanded
according to the specific characteristics of each traffic/weather event on the Guidelines.
QUALITATIVE
Quantitative and qualitative formulations. Ideally all formulations would be accurate and
based on numbers (quantitative). However road operators cannot always technically and
operatively assume such specific formulations and then qualitative formulations are used
instead. The paradox is that the main quantitative formulations for distance and length within
the 1968 Convention are not always correctly identified by drivers.
Traffic Information
FAR NEAR
WITHIN
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
Weather Information
FAR NEAR WITHN
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
YES YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
Warning
Distance
Length
NO LOCATION
(AT) LOCATION A
(TILL) LOCATION A
(FROM) LOCATION A
Distancelength
(TO) LOCACTION B
(AFTER/FROM) LOCATION A
(IN THE DIRECTION OF)
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
LOCATION /REGION
(IN) ROAD No.
YES
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
(TOWARDS) LOCATION
/REGION
(IN) X KM
(FOR) X KM
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
Approximate
QUANTITATIVE
position
Distance
Length
X KM
= X KM
TABLE 6. Location formulations for VMS that are far/near/within traffic or weather related events
PRINCIPLE 4.1 Danger warning signs will be used on VMS to warn about
events that are near (i.e. between 0 and 5 km, or between 0 and 2.5
minutes with traffic flows around 120km/h).
PRINCIPLE 4.2 Specific distance to the event should only be displayed with
danger warning signs if the event is far (i.e. beyond 5 km, or beyond 2.5
minutes with traffic flows around 120km/h) from the VMS (see table 6).
31

PRINCIPLE 4.3 Pictograms reporting danger (i.e., without red triangle) will
be used on VMS to inform about dangerous events that are far (i.e. beyond
5 km, or beyond 2.5 minutes with traffic flows around 120km/h).
PRINCIPLE 4.4 Indication of specific distance to an event or its location
should be present on signs reporting danger displayed before dangerous
events that are far, following the format deemed appropriate (see table 6).
PRINCIPLE 4.5 The set of location formulations used will be adjusted to the
different nature of traffic vs. weather related events (see table 6).
Locating road/traffic events: time-based formulations
Locating road/traffic events by using time is a new concept. Time is an essential concept in
modern societies and a main factor for decisions affecting mobility. Trips are intended to
achieve a mobility goal (from point A to point B) and the parameters involved are speed,
distance and time. However the most important parameter is, arguably, time. Following an
itinerary that allows faster speed will only be interesting if it allows also for shorter time.
Taking the shortest distance to a place will only interest us if it allows for a shorter time too.
If time is not a parameter that rules more decisions on road, it is because it involves
sophisticated, reliable and accurate measurements and estimations that are not always
available for road operators. That is why travel times still share a small percentage of useful
displays on the road. There is, however, a trend with a higher number of automatically
displayed travel times on roads. We should ask ourselves about the consequence of such a
practice, the consequences of switching on and off (see first issue). In the future, travel time
displays may abandon the quantity stance, the more the better. Road operators may
compromise with a quality stance: display useful travel times that help drivers rationalise their
trip decisions. Illuminating roads with travel times displays, bringing a fake sense of modernity,
is not really the question.
One important question is the difference between the use of travel times and delay times.
Travel times may or may not indicate traffic flow problems, whereas delay times always point
to some problems (normally congestion). The key issue here is accuracy and technical
capabilities. If road operators may manage travel times accurately (e.g. updates of 1-5
minutes) delay times will not be used. But when travel times cannot be registered and
informed with accuracy, the operator may resort to more coarse estimations of delays,
displayed manually. The specific categories of delays used will differ according to the specific
characteristics of the road infrastructures (length, existing alternatives). Cognitive
manageability of circumstances for the human actor should also be considered. Drivers will
easily use a few and basic categories to cope and manage reality.
For example the VAMOS White Book [19, p. 4-21] recommends that, when quantifying a delay,
no more than four delay levels should be displayed. According to VAMOS [19], surveys indicate
that the average driver will divert only to avoid a delay of 20 minutes or more. If the delay is
about one hour, 95% of drivers would divert. The specific information concerning delay time is
more important than the incident provoking it for drivers to decide what to do. VAMOS
recommendations identify 4 display levels (15, 30, 45 and 1 hour or more). Again, the specific
magnitudes of delay must be appraised by local operators according to the characteristics of
32

the particular road network being operated, but no more than 4 different categories should be
proposed to drivers.
Figure 20 show some travel times formulations, including some complementary text and
graphic elements. The main elements on travel times displays are:
Referent location. It may be a location based on city names, meaningful points
(bridges, tunnels, borders, countries) and also on road or exit/junction names (or
numbers). Some countries, notably Sweden and the Netherlands substitute the exit
name with an abstract pictogram ( ). The advantage is that VMS using 5x7 text
boxes may use that sign occupying just two characters.
Time unit. Normally minutes (min) and less frequently hours (h) or hours and minutes
together.
Titling. Some formulations do not use a title. Others frame the travel time
formulations with titles as Expected time, To City A, To ring road, etc.
Mapping. There are different travel time formulations for different basic trip
situations:
o Correspondence times. The normal travel time estimation pictures out a
number of time-space strings related to a number of consecutive locations
(correspondence).
o Optional routing. Involves travel times for two routes to same destination. It
may be done adopting line schematics or using the word VIA. It might be
softly or strongly recommended.
FIGURE 20. Basic travel time formulations
PRINCIPLE 4.6 Prioritise the information specifically concerning the delay

times upon the information concerning the cause of the delay .
PRINCIPLE 4.7 If reliable travel times are not available, consider displaying
more general delay information (e.g. 30 minutes, 45 minutes, one hour,
etc.).
PRINCIPLE 4.8 Build up travel times according to basic informative units and
structures (see figure 20 for examples).
33
Locating road/traffic events: pre-announcements

Our capacity to organize and manage traffic flows depends on our ability to administer
decisions and opportunities on the part of drivers, for example, to avoid a congested or
impeded road section. The organization of the road network is normally tied to circumstances
tactically related to space (e.g. the exit 145, 15 km away, is blocked), but it can also be linked
to circumstances strategically related to time: road works here tomorrow. Pre-announcements
linked to time allows frequent and dense traffic flows (i.e. commuters) to explore an decide on
alternatives routes to normal routes. array of decisions. Commuters can Organizing the
network can bPre-announcements linked to time, particularly
PRINCIPLE 4.9 Place information on pre-announcement messages according
to the following order. IU1 Time referent; IU2 Location-Situation; IU3
Advice ; IU4 -Cause.
POSITION
ON VMS
LINE 1
Pre-announcements
TIME REFERENT (WHEN)
Example
15
Next week
LINE 2
Location-Situation (WHERE)
A-13 Closed
LINE 3/4
Advice/Cause/Additional Info (WHY/WHAT)
Road works
TABLE 7. Recommendations for locating information units on pre-announcements
Fifth issue: The use of regulatory messages

Regulatory messages, to prohibit and mandate, are normally not well accepted by drivers. The
regulatory function comes to announce restrictions and change plans and expectations made
by each driver for that trip (travel speed, manoeuvres, directions, etc.). When road managers
consider the regulatory option, the background against it should be understood. Before
imposing restrictions on VMS, some basic conditions should be checked, and some parameters
known. Three main criteria will be pinpointed here, functional adequacy, quantification and
enforcement.
First criterion: Functional adequacy of the regulatory function
Before displaying the regulatory function on VMS we should first make sure that this specific
regulation will really solve our road/traffic situation. That means that we should see clearly
that if drivers behave according to the imposed regulation (e.g., reducing speed, keeping
certain distance between vehicles, etc.) our traffic problem will be solved adequately, in the
expected way. Drivers will appreciate it too.
15
Note that a specific order on the placement of informative units, according to the particular traffic
context of pre-announcements, is recommended.
34

Second criterion: To quantify the magnitude of regulations
If the first criterion passes, the second step is making sure that we can clearly establish the
concrete terms for the regulation, indicating the specific magnitude (time, place, distance,
length, etc.). Regulatory signs are very specific (consequence oriented) and the specific
magnitude that must be fixed must be clear too. Examples could be headway distance (when
to start, what distance, how long for), speed limit (which one, beginning, length), etc. In sum, if
the functional adequacy determines that regulating is opportune, the capacity to quantify it
determines if we can regulate (for example, because we have the adequate means, technical
or personal resources) and establish the specific levels for limits and mandates. Both criteria
are important and must be coherent.
Third criterion: Enforcement
The third step is determining the enforcement capabilities (police patrols, radar, cameras,
relevant road order legislation etc.). Some drivers may not comply with regulations displayed
on VMS. An effective and operative enforcement determines our capacity to efficiently and
credibly manage the regulations displayed. If drivers perceive that regulations are not
necessary, they may think about violating them or may try to adapt regulations to their
personal criteria. If, in addition, drivers see no enforcement, or infer that mandates and
prohibitions are not proportionate, they may violate the limit.
In sum, if these three criteria, functionality, quantification and enforcement, are accomplished,
it is adequate to display regulatory messages on VMS. Otherwise, danger warning is a better
option. Then drivers regulate themselves: if they guess the warning makes sense or they are
used to consistent warning signing, they will act accordingly. Another option is to recommend
(for example, speed): drivers may or may not accept the advice, depending on a number of
factors (previous history, reliability, self-confidence, etc.). If VMS operators do not follow the
three criteria, we risk using the tool drivers dislike the most (limiting their behaviour, be
obliged) in an inefficient manner. The risk is a losing credibility systemically, damaging VMS
efficacy and also our intention of prohibiting or mandating in the future.
What perceived frequency of effective enforcement is necessary for drivers to understand that
violations will be punished? We would need to determine the threshold concerning that
perception. Perhaps if we could sanction 60% or 80% of violations drivers would assume
sanctions as something very likely, nearly automatic. Studies show that the violation rate
diminishes if enforcement increases [20]. De Waard & Rooijers [21] manipulated the objective
probability of apprehension using police patrols that would stop one of every 100, 25 or 6
speed violators (the other violators would go free of punishment). Results indicate that
stopping one out of every 100 violators would not have effect upon speed, that stopping one
every 25 reduced the average speed in 1km/h and that stopping one out of six violators
reduced the average speed in 3.5km/h. The reduction on speed was maintained on the postcontrol 2km/h under the average (compared with the pre-control), but only under the 1 out of
6 condition. No doubt it is a high detection rate involving high enforcement resources.
In a second study, the same authors relied on the game theory in order to predict that, after an
initial strong control level, the proportion of speeding drivers will decrease quickly. What is
expected is a feedback process, with a given point of equilibrium between the enforcement
rate and the violation rate that should be empirically determined.
35
PRINCIPLE 5.1 Use regulatory VMS only when the three basic criteria
(functional adequacy, quantification and enforcement), can be successfully
accomplished.
Specific principles of design

VMS combining more than one pictogram must clearly indicate the place each pictogram will
occupy on the VMS. The main issue here is the way to distribute second pictograms on VMS.
This question affects particularly three types of VMS: pictogram-pictogram-text, pictogramtext-pictogram and full matrix.
The fundamental issue here is the way each VMS is read. We read left to right, top-down.
Normally the main pictogram is accompanied by complementary information and it must be
clear that this information refers to the main pictogram. The second pictogram should not
interfere on the meaning deduced by drivers in the sense we expect. It is a supporting
pictogram, not a messing one. We may even consider the adequacy of including that
secondary pictogram (perhaps not), or of dividing the information displayed into two
alternating VMS (although this is only for exceptional situations).
Rules for locating information on pictogram-text-pictogram VMS

A suggested set of rules for VMS displaying pictogram-text-pictogram (PTP) follow. These
rules consider an order of functional priority of signs, from more to less consequence oriented
pictograms to less: regulatory, then danger warning, then informative.
1. If a regulatory sign is placed on the left, then a regulatory
sign can be shown on the right, or a danger warning or an
informative one. The sign on the left obligation, prohibitionwill not be the same as the sign on the right (principle of non-redundancy) although it can hold
the same function with different content.
2. If a danger warning sign is placed on the left, then a danger
warning sign can be shown on the right, or an informative
one. The sign on the left danger warning- will not be the
same as the sign on the right (principle of non-redundancy) although it can hold the same
function with different content.
3. If an informative sign is placed on the left, then an
informative sign can be shown on the right. The sign on the
left informative - will not be the same as the sign on the
right (principle of non-redundancy) although it can hold the same function with different
content.
Note that these algorithms are intended to safeguard two aspects:
36

1. Priority of pictograms according to consequence orientation. Clearly, the most
consequence oriented pictograms for drivers are 1st regulatory, 2nd danger warning, 3rd
informative.
2. The correct interpretation of the combination between the main pictogram (the first
one seen beginning to read from left to right on this VMS) and the text accompanying
it. These are the main reasons for the structure and algorithms adopted.
Rules for locating information on pictogram-pictogram-text VMS

However, let us now take the case of the Italian VMS displaying pictogram-pictogram-text
(PPT). For the same principles to be kept, norms must be adapted to a different type of VMS:
1. Place secondary pictograms first, then the main pictogram
as it goes beside complementary text. Then, if a regulatory
sign is placed on the right, a regulatory sign can be shown on
the left, or a danger warning one or an informative one. The sign on the right obligation,
prohibitionwill not be the same as the sign on the left (principle of non-redundancy) although
it can hold the same function with different content.
2. If a danger warning sign is placed on the right, then a danger
warning sign can be shown on the left, or an informative one.
The sign on the right danger warning- will not be the same as
the sign on the left (principle of non-redundancy) although it can hold the same function with
different content.
3. If an informative sign is placed on the right, then an
informative sign can be shown on the left. The sign on the
right informative - will not be the same as the sign on the left
(principle of non-redundancy) although it can hold the same function with different content.
PRINCIPLE 6.1 Structure pictograms on P-T-P and P-P-T VMS following these
two criteria:
Pictograms are placed according to priority: 1st Mandatory
pictograms, 2nd Danger warnings, 3rd Reported danger, 4th Other
informative pictograms.
The pictogram with the highest priority is placed immediately to the
left of the text. This is the left hand pictogram in case of P-T-P VMS,
and the right hand pictogram in case of a P-P-T VMS.
Following with this question, the need to provide a logical way for structuring information on
VMS, full matrix VMS (e.g., MS-4) are most challenging. When looking at the PPT (Italian) and
the PTP (Portuguese, Slovenian, Spanish) VMS, we may discover that sometimes one layout
serves better the comprehension of users than others. To show it simply:
This message can be read as Road works cause congestion
that is located wherever. No doubt should appear: location
refers to what is just beside, congestion.
37

This message can be read as Congestion, located
wherever, caused by road works. No doubt should appear
location refers to what is just beside: congestion.
Let us see another example:
We read congestion located wherever, recommended
speed of 90km/h. The speed recommendation is the
information linked to the congestion located near. It is true
that the recommendation is the consequence of congestion. But locating the congestion (left)
takes priority according to road safety principle (it is only a recommendation).
Here we read recommended speed of 90km/h due to
congestion located. However, the message adopts here a
different principle: the consequence goes first then the cause
(congestion) and the location.
The interesting issue here is full matrix VMS that may change the position and the
interpretation of the entire VMS quite flexibly. And may help to produce very coherent
messages concerning causes-consequences, pictogram function, proximity of main pictogram
and explanatory text, and the like. For example:
VS.
In this way, full matrix VMS may make the most of two things: reproducing natural language
schemas for causes and consequences yet linking the complementary text information to the
main pictogram on the display. That is very interesting and helpful.
Partners using full matrix VMS, however, will have to do a great additional effort, focusing on
the specific aspects that lead to recommend such and such layout, among the many
distributions and sizes that could be adopted on such panels.
38
How to use the Guidelines

The basic informative elements
Text boxes
Main bodies on sign standardisation, such as ISO or the 1968 Vienna Convention, work with a
correspondence between verbal definitions of situations and the pictograms representing
these situations. The rationale is clear. Verbal descriptions (in French, English, etc.) are precise
and do not vary. For example, we may need a sign to indicate: Do not touch: danger of deadly
electric shock. Then we may have a pictorial design for it. Pictorial designs may be renewed,
improved and change over time, the need as expressed by the verbal description will not.
Verbal descriptions concerning VMS are quite complex as they
have to show the whole lot of information that partners within
ESG4 consider necessary for certain road/traffic event. This
verbal descriptions we call text boxes include pictograms (one
FIGURE 21. Text box on the
or two) and alphanumeric elements (numbers, text,
ESG4 Guidelines
abbreviations, etc.). Text boxes are depicted in green, just
before each set of recommended messages for each road/traffic situation and for each VMS
type (Fig. 21). Text boxes indicate the main informative elements and structure (order) that
should be displayed on the five different VMS types. The basic content, informative elements
included on the text boxes cannot be changed, as it is our fundamental set for harmonisation.
The different VMS types will then reproduce, making the most of its own graphical
possibilities, this fundamental message. Some elements on the text boxes may be depicted
within brackets in order to indicate the optional character of this particular element on the
VMS.
Text vs. PICTO+ VMS
Text-VMS follow natural language rules (English, Swedish, etc.), that is quite flexible in terms
of what goes first or last within the order of the sentence. Pictogram-VMS language or PICTO+
follows different rules. Pictogram-VMS rules aim to optimise the relation between pictograms
and words, the former having priority, the latter being complementary to pictograms. The rule
communicate using pictograms not words as much as possible is central.
Primary and secondary elements
The primary elements on the VMS are the essential ones concerning the PICTO+ language. Let
us remember that the PICTO+ means the essential coordinated set of pictogram-text within
the VMS. Within this set, the main pictogram is detected and read accompanying the text just
beside or below depending on the VMS type. Primary information elements within this set are
the ones corresponding to the nature of event and to location formulations (space and timebased). Some special cases related with different types of rerouting situations, special vehicles
and special situations also have primacy at some point.
Secondary elements are not unimportant, yet not essential. By secondary elements we
generally understand advices, causes and general recommendations. The importance of these
messages concerns drivers comfort as drivers like to know the causes and complementary
information in order to picture out whats going on [18].
39

Some interpretation keys
Remember that optional terms are put into brackets. Words, terms or expressions which we
could use optionally on the VMS are indicated using round brackets (). The following example
means that giving advice is optional within the basic message:
Locating informative elements using these Guidelines and building the

VMS message
Brought to a specific level, VMS harmonisation involves rules for design and showing the
product, the messages, and that is what the Guidelines are meant for. It is important to show
specific messages, as concrete as possible, because too many degrees of freedom on the part
of road operators will introduce heterogeneity on the resulting messages.
Knowing this problem, the ESG4 group has built up a set of highly specific recommendations.
Nevertheless, and in spite of only a short set of road/traffic events being present, the scope of
the present Guidelines is too large to introduce every variation in detail.
What these Guidelines provide is the elements necessary for the message to be built according
to the particular operator needs. For obtaining the recommended message one has to know
what recommendations are strict (e.g., main pictogram selected, location formulations) and
where some degrees of freedom are allowed for operators to select and use the corresponding
message.
After reading the ESG4 Guidelines introduction and grasping the basics concerning design for
harmonised displays on VMS at the European level, the steps that should be followed are:
1. Go to the particular road/traffic event you are interested in (e.g., wp.6.1.wind).
2. Go to the first page on the situation and have a look at the text boxes.
3. Go to the page where the VMS type you are using is located. It always follows this
order:
a. Text boxes
b. Text only VMS
c. Pictogram-text VMS
d. Pictogram-pictogram-text VMS
e. Pictogram-text-pictogram VMS
f. Full matrix VMS
40

4. Once in the right VMS type, locate the basic far-near-within structure on the page and
select according to the situation you are currently handling (for example, road users
pass by a VMS still far away from the event).
5. Select the case: general or specific if you may choose. Most times only the general case
is available. Specific cases may concern heavy vehicles, or bad circumstances (e.g.,
heavy snow).
6. Select the pictogram and the main text structure accompanying it
a. Location: you will see a narrow blue box below headed with L.F. (Location
Formulations) and some alphanumeric expressions (1.A., 3.2.A, etc.). These
codes indicate the recommended location formulations for this specific
situation. You may have a look at the recommended location formulations (see
table 4, page 31) then select the one you estimate better within the group
available on the narrow box.
b. Advice. You may select one advice among the ones recommended on the
white box below.
c. Cause. Causes are quite generic and no more than 4 or 5 pictograms or
sentences are needed to give a general description of causes. You will find
them also within the white box at the specific page.
d. Recommendations. Some generic recommendations may apply, also some
specific ones. See the corresponding indication within each case.
i. Note: sometimes a recommendation is displayed on the VMS as a
pictogram (for example, recommended speed). You will then see the
word advice printed in blue and within brackets (ADVICE). It reminds
you that other options are still available, but also that no more than
one advice per message is recommended.
e. Special characters: abbreviations, abstract alphanumeric, Europeanisms.
Follow the recommendations given above (see third principle).
f. Check it all. Make sure the message obtained can be applied to your VMS
(placement, number of characters per line, etc). A complete VMS has been
obtained.
41
WP1.1. Congestion, no exit
44
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5
WP.1.1 CONGESTION NO EXIT

Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, no exit available
FAR
WITHIN
CONGESTION. LOCATION.
(ADVICE)
(ADVICE)
CONGESTION. TRAVEL
TIMES. (ADVICE)
CONGESTION. TRAVEL
TIMES. (ADVICE)
SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME
General
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
NEAR
TEXT BOXES
CONGESTION. TRAVEL
TIMES. (CAUSE)
45

FAR
CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES.

(CAUSE)
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

(ADVICE)

(ADVICE)
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
46
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
ADVICE
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
CONGESTION
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
ADVICE
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
CONGESTION
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
CONGESTION
LOCATION
(CAUSE)
WITHIN
NEAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED

FAR
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIMES
(ADVICE)
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
47
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIMES
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSES
TRAVEL TIMES
(CAUSE)
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
LOCATION
(CAUSE)
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
WITHIN
NEAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED

FAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TRAVEL TIMES
ADVICE
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
TEXT
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIMES
CAUSE
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TRAVEL TIMES
ADVICE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
WITHIN
NEAR
48
TEXT

FAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TRAVEL TIMES
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
TEXT
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIMES
TRAVEL TIMES
ADVICE
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
WITHIN
NEAR
49
TEXT

ADVICE
ADVICE
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIMES
TRAVEL TIMES
TEXT
50
ADVICE
TRAVEL TIMES
TEXT
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
WITHIN
NEAR
FAR
TEXT
WP4.1. Road closed, exit

available
51
WP. 4.1 ROAD CLOSED AHEAD EXIT AVAILABLE

Messages intended to indicate that the road is closed ahead due to road works and that there is a compulsory exit available
FAR
EXIT A
RD. CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY.

LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)
SPECIAL CASES?
General
RD. CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY.

LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)
NEAR
52
WITHIN
TEXT BOXES

EXIT A
FAR
ROAD WORKS
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES ?
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
ROAD CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY

LOCATION
CAUSE/ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
ROAD CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY

LOCATION.
CAUSE/ADVICE
NEAR
53
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
NEAR
LOCATION
LOCATION
(ADVICE/CAUSE)
ROAD WORKS
MODERATE SPEED
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES ?
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
54
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
TEXT
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES?
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
ADVICE
CAUSE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
55

EXIT A
FAR
NEAR
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
TEXT
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES?
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
56
WITHIN

EXIT A
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES?
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
CAUSE
ADVICE
TEXT
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
FAR
57
WP4.2. Next exit closed due to

road works
58
WP. 4.2 NEXT EXIT CLOSED DUE TO ROAD WORKS

Messages intended to indicate that the next exit is closed due to road works and that drivers should remain in the main road or
take a different exit
EXIT A
FAR
NEXT EXIT CLOSED.

LOCATION.
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
SPECIAL CASES?
General
NEXT EXIT CLOSED.

LOCATION.
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
NEAR
59
WITHIN
TEXT BOXES
WP. 4.2 (NEXT) EXIT CLOSED DUE TO ROAD WORKS

EXIT A
EXIT A
FAR
ROAD WORKS
TEXT
ROAD WORKS
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES ?
L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
EXIT A CLOSED
LOCATION
ADVICE/CAUSE
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
EXIT A CLOSED
LOCATION
CAUSE/ADVICE
NEAR
60
WITHIN

EXIT A
NEAR
LOCATON
LOCATION
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
(ADVICE/CAUSE)
TEXT
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES ?
L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
FAR
61
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
TEXT
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES?
L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
(ADVICE)
62

EXIT A
FAR
NEAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES?
L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
63
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
SPECIAL CASES?
L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
CAUSE
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
WITHIN
NEAR
64
WP6.1. Wind
65
WP.6.1 CROSS WIND

Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind
SPECIAL CASES
WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)
General
FAR
WIND. LOCATION. ADVICE

Go to WP2 or to WP.3.5
WIND. LOCATION. (ADVICE

WSV)
TEXT BOXES
NEAR
WIND. LOCATION.
(ADVICE)

WSV)
NO OVERTAKING VSW.
WIND. LOCATION
CASE UNDER STUDY
66
WITHIN
WIND. LOCATION.
(ADVICE)

WSV)
NO OVERTAKING VSW.
WIND. LOCATION
WP.6.1 CROSS WIND

FAR
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WIND
TRUCKS AVOID NEXT BRIDGE
WIND
(ADVICE WSV)
WIND
TILL LOCATION A
TRUCKS OVERTAKE FORBIDEN
WIND
TILL LOCATION A
TRUCKS OVERTAKE FORBIDEN
TRUCKSUNDER
AVOID BRIDGE
X
CASE
STUDY
ADVICE
ADVICE
SPECIAL CASES
TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X

()
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
WIND
AFTER LOCATION A
TRUCKS AVOID NEXT BRIDGE
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
WIND
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
67
ADVICE
WIND
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
ADVICE
General
WIND
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
WITHIN
NEAR

()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WP.6.1 CROSS WIND

FAR
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
WIND
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
WIND
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
ADVICE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

AFTER LOC ATION A
[ADVICE WSV]
[ADVICE WSV ]
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
[ADVICE VSW]
WIND
TILL LOCATION A

CASE
UNDER STUDY
()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
68
ADVICE
ADVICE

()
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WIND
TILL LOCATION A
ADVICE
SPECIAL CASES
WITHIN
NEAR

()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WP.6.1 CROSS WIND

FAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
ADVICE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
AFTER LOC. A
[ADVICE WSV]
[ADVICE WSV ]
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
[ADVICE VSW]
TILL LOCATION A

CASE
UNDER STUDY
()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
69
ADVICE
ADVICE

()
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
TILL LOCATION A
ADVICE
SPECIAL CASES
WITHIN
NEAR

()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WP.6.1 CROSS WIND

FAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
[ADVICE]
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
LOCATION
[ADVICE WSV]
[ADVICE WSV ]
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
[ADVICE VSW]

CASE
UNDER STUDY
()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
70
TILL LOCATION A
ADVICE
ADVICE

()
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
ADVICE
SPECIAL CASES
WITHIN
NEAR

()
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WP.6.1 CROSS WIND MS4 SIGNS

SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
(LOCATION)
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
CASE UNDER STUDY
71
(LOCATION)
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
ADVICE
(LOCATION)
(ADVICE)
WITHIN
NEAR
ADVICE
General
FAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
WP6.3.1. Slippery road due to

ice or snow
72
WP.6.3.1. SLIPPERY ROAD DUE TO ICE OR SNOW

Messages intended to warn on the existence of a slippery road section due to ice or snow
FAR
General
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
ADVICE
REROUTING
NEAR
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
ADVICE
REROUTING/SLOW DOWN
TEXT BOXES
WITHIN
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS
SPECIAL CASES
SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
73
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD.
LOCATION. (ADVICE)
Go to WP2
WP.6.3.1 SLIPPERY ROAD DUE TO ICE OR SNOW

General
FAR
WITHIN
NEAR
SNOW-ICE
FROM LOCATION B
TO LOCATION C
SNOW-ICE
[ADVICE]
SNOW-ICE
[ADVICE]
TRUCKS FORBIDEN
AFTER LOCATION A
USE ROAD X
TRUCKS FORBIDEN
AFTER LOCATION A
USE PARKING
SPEED LIMIT 80km/h

SNOW-ICE
TILL LOCATION A
SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
74
ADVICE
ADVICE

SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

General
FAR
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
REROUTING
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
REROUTING/SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
ADVICE
SNOW-ICE
LOCATION
SNOW-ICE
LOCATION
SPECIAL CASES
ADVICE
REROUTING

LOCATION
LOCATION
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
ADVICE
ADVICE
REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA
ADVICE
75
ADVICE

General
FAR
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
REROUTING
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
REROUTING/SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
ADVICE
LOCATION
ADVICE
LOCATION
ADVICE
SPECIAL CASES
ADVICE
REROUTING

LOCATION
LOCATION
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
ADVICE
ADVICE
ADVICE
76
ADVICE
WP.6.3.1. SLIPPERY ROAD DUE TO ICE OR SNOW

[ADVICE]
FAR
General
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
REROUTING
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
REROUTING/SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

LOCATION
ADVICE
LOCATION
ADVICE
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SPECIAL CASES
ADVICE
REROUTING

LOCATION
LOCATION
LOCATION
ADVICE
ADVICE
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
ADVICE
77
ADVICE
WP.6.3.1.1 SLIPPERY ROAD DUE TO ICE OR SNOW

General
FAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
REROUTING
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
REROUTING/SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
SLOW DOWN
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
SPECIAL CASES
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
LOCATION
ADVICE
REROUTING
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
78
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
WP6.3.2. Slippery road due to

excess of water
79
WP.6.3.2 SLIPPERY ROAD DUE TO EXCESS OF WATER

Messages intended to warn on the existence of a slippery road section due to excess of water or pools
SPECIAL CASES
AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)
General
FAR
SLIPPERY ROAD. CAUSE

LOCATION.
NEAR
TEXT BOXES
WITHIN
SLIPPERY ROAD. CAUSE.

LOCATION. (ADVICE)
SLIPPERY ROAD. CAUSE.

LOCATION. (ADVICE)
SPEED LIMIT. SLIPPERY

ROAD. LOCATION.
SPEED LIMIT. SLIPPERY

ROAD. LOCATION
CASE UNDER STUDY
80

FAR
SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
CASE UNDER STUDY
81
SLIPPERY ROAD
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
(NOTHING)
WATER POOLS
AQUAPLANNING
SLIPPERY ROAD
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSE
General
SLIPPERY ROAD.
(SPECIFY)
LOCATION
WITHIN
NEAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

FAR
SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLIPPERY ROAD
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLIPPERY ROAD
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
CASE UNDER STUDY
82
ADVICE
ADVICE
CAUSE
General
(WATER POOLS)
LOCATION
(NOTHING)
WATER POOLS
AQUAPLANNING
WITHIN
NEAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

FAR
SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
CASE UNDER STUDY
83
ADVICE
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSE
General
WATER POOLS
LOCATION
(NOTHING)
WATER POOLS
AQUAPLANNING
WITHIN
NEAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

FAR
SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
CASE UNDER STUDY
84
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
ADVICE
CAUSE
General
WATER POOLS
LOCATION
(NOTHING)
WATER POOLS
AQUAPLANNING
WITHIN
NEAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A
(LOCATION)
(ADVICE)
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
CASE UNDER STUDY
85
ADVICE
(LOCATION)
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
(NOTHING)
WATER POOLS
AQUAPLANNING
WITHIN
NEAR
(WATER POOLS)
(LOCATION)
CAUSE
General
FAR
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
OVERVIEW OF EXISTING DESIGN

RECOMMENDATIONS
Current situations
Starting up the guidelines has been difficult, but deciding when to stop is also difficult. In
principle, we intend to follow the way indicated by the Working Book. We have in mind to
keep working with the 34 road/traffic situations of the present version of the Working Book
(2009). But when we look at the present situations, many doubts arise.
One of the general issues concern specifically full-matrix VMS (MS4). Clearly more layouts exist
that could fit the different situations (some six different potential layouts). Ergonomic matters
also arise: type and size of fonts, pictograms, number of informative units per message, etc.
Full-matrix VMS will need time to mature and studies to determine when to mirror simpler
VMS and when to make the most of own potentialities.
Another general issue relates to abstract alphanumeric characters. Let us remember that the
first goal of the Mare Nostrum VMS project was coining abstract alphanumeric formulations
for indicating location alternatives: distance, length and distance-length. The list of Location
Formulations (table 4) shows many alternatives based on pure text (national language). The
ESG4-Mare Nostrum must decide on results available and also on potential new formulations
in order to pursue the goal of making abstract as many space-based location formulations as
possible. Abstract alphanumeric also involve other possibilities as indicating exit by using a
simple abstract sign (see annex 1).
Specific working packages vary on complexity. Putting aside the two previous paragraphs,
WP1.1 Congestion, no exit, can be considered completed. WP4.1 Road closed ahead, exit
available and WP4.2 (Next) exit closed due to road works leave us with the problem of the
number of available exits before the closure. The pictogram is excellent when no additional
exits are available. But when the situation is far away we must be careful and avoid mistaking
drivers. WP.4.2 counts with some additional help from the two additional variations indicating
that the exit before or after the closed exit is also available.
Weather related events bring us the problem of type of situation, type of vehicle involved and
available mobility. This brings on a difficult issue: the use of regulations on VMS (see fifth
principle). WP6.1 Wind takes both issues. For the time being, we leave the special case of Wind
Sensitive Vehicles (WSV) as a CUS (Case under Study). The question is a) if the wind is not so
strong and WSV can stay on the road, what specific regulations or bans (speed limit, no
overtaking for trucks) can be issued?, and b) if the wind is strong enough for WSV to stop or
take alternative routes, how can this be handled and announced on VMS. Many operative
questions and categories related to WSV remain in order for coherent VMS recommendations
to follow. WP6.3.1 Slippery road due to ice or snow is probably a more difficult case than
WP6.1, but here specific regulatory pictograms available help a lot. We have divided the case
into three parts, making a general case, a case for car circulation with snow chains and a case
86

for indicating heavy vehicles that traffic is not allowed. Again, we find difficulties for indicating
trucks to stop or to use parking area. As we may see many of these issues make us aware of
suggestions and problems the European Study 3 can put forward.
Preview of future situations

One of the main issues for ESG4 has been congestion, as it is for the whole Europe. Clearly the
importance of congestion and the presence of congestions in our work do not find a parallel
within the present edition of the ESG4 Guidelines. In addition to WP1.1, two situations were
long time ago undertaken WP1.2 Congestion, exit available and WP1.3 Congested exit. The
main problem of these situations is the lack of adequate pictograms to display the situations
without recurring to natural words. The result was that WP1.2 was not treated differently to
WP1.1 as if having an exit or not was not important! Here the problem is that the general
conditions under which certain types of rerouting can be recommended or implicitly offered,
are not clear. WP1.3 brings a different problem: if we use the congestion pictogram to indicate
congestion on exit, only native drivers will know it because all specific information concerning
the nature of event must be communicated via text.
Some new pictograms are needed, similar to the ones used on WP4.1 and WP4.2, already
within RE.2. We have very good alternatives coming from the French practice and we have
advanced how the situation could be managed once pictograms as such were available. The
result is present on annexes 1 and 2. Again the empirical work combined with work at the level
of United Nations is of fundamental importance for both more, and more consistent
recommendations to follow.
87
ANNEXES
Annex 1. WP.1.2. Congestion, exit available (draft case)
Annex 2. WP.1.3. Congestion on exit (draft case)
88
WP1.2. Congestion, exit

available
WHOLE WORKING PACKAGE

UNDER STUDY DRAFT 1
89
WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE

Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available
FAR
NEAR
TEXT BOXES
WITHIN
Mild congestion WP1.1
CONGESTION-EXIT
AVAILABLE. LOCATION.
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
CONGESTION-EXIT
(ADVICE)
CONGESTION-EXIT
(ADVICE)
General

CONGESTION-TRAVEL
TIME-EXIT AVAILABLE.
TRAVEL TIME (CAUSE)
CONGESTION EXIT
AVAILABLE. TRAVEL TIMES.
(ADVICE)
CONGESTION. TRAVEL
TIME. EXIT AVAILABLETRAVEL TIME.(ADVICE)
90

FAR
CONGESTION
LOCATION
EXIT AVAILABLE
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
ADVICE
ADVICE
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
CONGESTION
TRAVEL TIME
EXIT AVAILABLE- TRAVEL TIME
CONGESTION
TRAVEL TIME
EXIT AVAILABLE-TRAVEL TIME
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
ADVICE
CAUSES
CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
CONGESTION.
LOCATION
EXIT AVAILABLE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE
LOCATION. CAUSE/ADVICE
WITHIN
NEAR
91
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED

FAR
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
=LOCATION
4 KM
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
(CAUSE)
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
LOCATION
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
AVAILABLE, FREE
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIME
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
ADVICE
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
ADVICE
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
AVAILABLE
92
TRAVEL TIME
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED

FAR
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
AVAILABLE
General
LOCATION
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
AVAILABLE
FREE
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIME
ADVICE
TRAVEL TIME
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
TEXT
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
ADVICE
AVAILABLE
93
TEXT
TRAVEL TIME

FAR
WITHIN
NEAR
LOCATION
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
LOCATION
AVAILABLE
General
LOCATION
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
ADVICE
AVAILABLE
AVAILABLE
FREE
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
[
TRAVEL TIME
ADVICE
CAUSES
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIME
94
TEXT
TRAVEL TIME

NEAR
FAR
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE )
LOCATION
AVAILABLE
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
ADVICE
TEXT
REROUTING
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIMES
TEXT
95
ADVICE
TRAVEL TIME
TRAVEL TIME
ADVICE
TEXT
TEXT
REROUTING
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
LOCATION
AVAILABLE
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
TEXT
WP1.3. Congestion on next exit
WHOLE WORKING PACKAGE

UNDER STUDY DRAFT 1
96
WP.1.3 CONGESTION ON NEXT EXIT

Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the next exit available
TEXT BOXES
EXIT A
FAR
CONGESTION ON EXIT.
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
General
CONGESTION ON EXIT .
LOCATION.
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
NEAR
CONGESTION. TRAVEL
TIMES. (CAUSE/ADVICE)
CONGESTION. TRAVEL
TIMES. (ADVICE)
97
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
CONGESTION
TRAVEL TIMES
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
CONGESTION ON EXIT
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSES
General
CONGESTION ON EXIT.
LOCATION
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
NEAR
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
RIGHT LANE CLOSED
98
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
NEAR
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
SLOW DOWN
MODERATE SPEED
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
LOCATION
TRAVEL TIMES
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSES
General
LOCATION
(CAUSE/ADVICE)
ROAD WORKS
ACCIDENT
99
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
LOCATION
TRAVEL TIMES
CAUSES
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSES
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
WITHIN
NEAR
100

EXIT A
FAR
NEAR
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
LOCATION
TRAVEL TIMES
CAUSES
ADVICE
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
ADVICE
CAUSE
ADVICE
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE)
101
WITHIN

EXIT A
FAR
NEAR
LOCATION
(ADVICE )
ADVICE
CAUSES
General
LOCATION
(ADVICE )
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B
LOCATION
TRAVEL TIMES
CAUSES
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B
TEXT
102
WITHIN
REFERENCES
[1] Blanch, M.T., Lucas, A., Messina, C. (2009). ES4-Mare Nostrum: the Working Book. Madrid:
DGT.
[2] UNECE (1968/1995). Convention on Road Signs and Signals, E/CONF.56/17/Rev.1/Amend.1.
Disponible: http://www.unece.org/trans/main/welcwp1.html
[3] WERD/DERD (2000). Framework for harmonized implementation of variable message signs
in Europe. Final version 3.0, spring 2000. West European Road Directors (WERD), Deputy
European Road Directors (DERD).
[4] UNECE (2008). ECE/TRANS/WP.1/119 - Consolidated Resolution on Road Signs and Signals
(R.E.2). Available at: http://www.unece.org/trans/roadsafe/wp1fdoc.html
[5] Piot, D. (2003). Etude dimpact des messages diffuss par PMV Influence des messages de
sensibilisation la scurit. Socit des Autoroutes Paris-Rhin-Rhne.
[6] SETRA (1994). SETRA (1994). Panneaux de signalisation messages variables. Bagneux:
Service dtudes Techniques des Routes et Autoroutes -SETRA.
[7] CIE (1994). CIE (Commission Internationale de lclariage) (1994). Technical Report.
Variable message signs. CIE 111-1994. Viena: Austria.
[8] Erke, A., Sagberg, F., Hagman, R. (2007). Effects of route guidance variable message signs
(VMS) on driver behaviour. Transportation Research Part F, 10, p. 447457.
[9] Dudek 2002 Dudek, C. L. (2002).Guidelines for Changeable Message Sign Messages. FHWA,
U.S.Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
[10] Dudek 2004 Dudek, C. L. (2004).Changeable Message Sign Operation and Messaging
Handbook. Informe: FHWA-OP-03-070. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
[11] Lay, M.G. (2004). Design of traffic signs. In C. Castro & T. Horberry (Eds.): The Human
Factors of Transport Signs. Boca Raton: CRC Press, p. 25-48.
[12] Dewar, R.E. (2006). Road warnings with traffic control devices. In M.S.Wogalter (Ed.):
Handbook of Warnings. Mahwah, NJ: LEA, p. 177-185.
[13] Wogalter, M.S., Sojourner, R.J. and Brelsford, J.W. (1997). Comprehension and retention
of safety pictorials. Ergonomics, 40., No. 5, 531-542.
[14] Krampen, M. (1983). Icons on the road. Semiotica, 43 (1/2), 1-203, p. 30.
103
[15] Lucas, A., Montoro, L. (2004). Some critical remarks on a new traffic system: VMS Part II.
In C. Castro & T. Horberry (Eds.): The Human Factors of Transport Signs. Boca Raton: CRC Press,
p. 199-212.
[16] Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules and knowledge: signals, signs and symbols, and other
distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, 13 (3), p. 257-266.
[17] Nenzi, R. (1997). Use of Dynamic Signing (VMS). Volume 3C. Telematics on the Trans
European road Network 2 TELTEN2. Final Report. Brussels: ERTICO.
[18] Simlinger, P., Egger, S., Galinski, Ch. (2007). Proposal on unified pictograms, keywords,
bilingual verbal messages and typefaces for VMS in the TERN. SOMS/IN-SAFETY. IN-SAFETY
Deliverable 2.3. Contract N. 506716. January, 2008.
[19] Beccaria, G., Bolelli, A., Wrathall, C.W., Rutley, K.S., Schneider, H.W., Balz, W., Friedrich,
B., Ploss, G., Cremer, M., Putensen, K., Naso, P.G. and Schlter, M. (1991). White book for
variable message signs application. Sobrero: The VAMOS Consortium. 5]
[20] Bjornskau,T. and Elvik,R. (1992). Can road traffic law enforcement permanently reduce the
number of accidents? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 24, p. 507-520.
[21] De Waard, D. and Rooijers, T. (1994). An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness
of different methods and intensities of law enforcement on driving speed on motorways.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No 6, p. 751-765.
104

Esg4 DG 2010

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Esg4 DG 2010

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

2010

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES

Expert & Study Group 4

Design Principles and Message Recommendations for VMS

Version 5, October 2010

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

EXPERT & STUDY GROUP 4-MARE NOSTRUM

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

Principles of design: general and specific

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

General principles of design

First issue: Considerations before using VMS

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

PRINCIPLE 1.10 New pictograms may be temporarily accompanied by

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

Second issue: Use of pictograms on VMS

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

FIGURE 7. PICTO+ philosophy applied to different layouts

In sum, regulatory signs are the most specific

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

FIGURE 10. Signs on the 1968 Convention

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

FIGURE 12. Signs for Hard

Road/exit closed and alternative ways

FIGURE 13. Options to road/exit closure (after RE.2 2008)

PRINCIPLE 2.3 In principle, the catalogue in the 1968 Convention on Road

Third issue: Use of alphanumeric elements on VMS

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

FIGURE 14. Building alphanumeric information according to order

Nature of danger vs. Cause of danger

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

FIGURE 18. Cause of slippery road located on the first line

Consider length as part of nature of event

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

ESG4 Recommendations for Message Type

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

TABLE 3. Standard (blue) and non standard abbreviations

Fourth issue: Strategies to locate road/traffic events

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

TABLE 5. Relation of time and distance at 120km/h

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

Figure 19. Distance and type of information [14; p. 35)

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

FIGURE 20. Basic travel time formulations

PRINCIPLE 4.6 Prioritise the information specifically concerning the delay

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

Locating road/traffic events: pre-announcements

Advice/Cause/Additional Info (WHY/WHAT)

TABLE 7. Recommendations for locating information units on pre-announcements

Fifth issue: The use of regulatory messages