THE ESG4 GUIDELINES

Expert & Study Group 4

Mare Nostrum

2010
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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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 4

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.

13

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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
7

60km/h 11.23 s 25-27 6-10

80km/h 8.42 s 17-19 4-8

100km/h 6.74 s 12-14 3-6

120km/h 5.61 s 8-10 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 (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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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. 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 12. Signs for Hard

Shoulder Use (after RE.2 2008)

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 ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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 LINE 1 LINE 2 LINE 3/4 ESG4 Recommendations for Message Type Regulatory Pictogram suffices as nature of event L C Danger warning N L A/C Reporting danger or informative N
10

L A/C

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 11

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).

25

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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 Equal From A to B Exit Information Parking Park-and-Ride BUS VIA DIRECTION ABBREVIATION KM or km M or m H or h MIN or min T or t KG or kg = 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 13

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.

26

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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 React 17m 21m 25m Slow down 27m 49m 78m Stop 44m 70m 103m total 88m 140m 206m From danger-warning to dangerous event in... 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

80km/h 100km/h 120km/h

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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. 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 (TO) LOCACTION B (AFTER/FROM) LOCATION A (IN THE DIRECTION OF) LOCATION /REGION (IN) ROAD No. (TOWARDS) LOCATION /REGION (IN) X KM (FOR) X KM X KM = X KM

QUALITATIVE

Distancelength

YES YES

NO NO

NO NO

YES YES

NO NO

NO NO

Approximate position

YES

NO

NO

YES

NO

NO

QUANTITATIVE

Distance

YES YES

NO YES

NO YES

NO NO

NO NO

NO NO

Length

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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 ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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 LINE 2 LINE 3/4 Pre-announcements TIME REFERENT (WHEN)
15

Example Next week A-13 Closed Road works

Location-Situation (WHERE) Advice/Cause/Additional Info (WHY/WHAT)

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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, prohibition- 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. 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

TEXT BOXES

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN

CONGESTION. LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

CONGESTION. LOCATION. (ADVICE)

CONGESTION. LOCATION. (ADVICE)

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

General

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (CAUSE)

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (ADVICE)

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (ADVICE)

45

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
CONGESTION LOCATION (CAUSE) CONGESTION LOCATION [ADVICE]

NEAR
CONGESTION LOCATION [ADVICE]

WITHIN

General

ADVICE

ADVICE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (CAUSE)

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (ADVICE)

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (ADVICE)

CAUSES

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

46

WP.1.1 CONGESTION NO EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, no exit available

FAR

NEAR
LOCATION [ADVICE]

WITHIN
LOCATION [ADVICE]

LOCATION (CAUSE)

General

ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIMES (CAUSE)

TRAVEL TIMES (ADVICE)

TRAVEL TIMES (ADVICE)

CAUSES

ADVICE
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

47

WP.1.1 CONGESTION NO EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, no exit available

FAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

CAUSE ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE
TRAVEL TIMES

TEXT

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIMES

TRAVEL TIMES

CAUSE

ADVICE
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

TEXT

48

WP.1.1 CONGESTION NO EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, no exit available

FAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

CAUSE ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE
TRAVEL TIMES

TEXT

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIMES

TRAVEL TIMES

CAUSES

ADVICE
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

TEXT

49

WP.1.1 CONGESTION NO EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, no exit available

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN

General

LOCATION (ADVICE)

LOCATION (ADVICE)

LOCATION (ADVICE)

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

ADVICE

ADVICE ADVICE

TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

TEXT

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 1.B, 2. B

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIMES

TRAVEL TIMES

TRAVEL TIMES

ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

50

WP4.1. Road closed, exit available

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

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

TEXT BOXES

FAR

NEAR

EXIT A

WITHIN

RD. CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY. LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

RD. CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY. LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

SPECIAL CASES?

General

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

52

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

EXIT A

FAR
ROAD CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY LOCATION. CAUSE/ADVICE

NEAR
ROAD CLOSED-EXIT COMPULSORY LOCATION CAUSE/ADVICE

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES ?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

53

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

EXIT A

FAR
LOCATION (CAUSE/ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE/CAUSE)

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES ?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

54

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

EXIT A

FAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION [ADVICE]

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

ADVICE CAUSE

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

55

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

EXIT A

FAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION [ADVICE]

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

56

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

EXIT A

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN

General

LOCATION (ADVICE)

LOCATION (ADVICE)

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

57

WP4.2. Next exit closed due to road works

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

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

TEXT BOXES

EXIT A

FAR

NEAR
NEXT EXIT CLOSED. LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

WITHIN

NEXT EXIT CLOSED. LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

SPECIAL CASES?

General

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

59

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 EXIT A

FAR
EXIT A CLOSED LOCATION CAUSE/ADVICE

NEAR
EXIT A CLOSED LOCATION ADVICE/CAUSE

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS TEXT L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

ROAD WORKS TEXT L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES ?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

60

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
LOCATON (CAUSE/ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE/CAUSE)

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES ?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

61

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
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION [ADVICE]

WITHIN

General
CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

62

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
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN

General

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

63

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

NEAR

WITHIN

General

LOCATION (ADVICE)

LOCATION (ADVICE)

CAUSE ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT

L.F.: 0.A,1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

L.F.: 0.A, 1.A, 3.2.A, 1.B

SPECIAL CASES?

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

64

WP6.1. Wind

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

65

WP.6.1 CROSS WIND Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind

TEXT BOXES

FAR

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

WITHIN

SPECIAL CASES WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)

General

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

WIND. LOCATION. (ADVICE)

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

WIND. LOCATION. (ADVICE WSV) NO OVERTAKING VSW. WIND. LOCATION Go to WP2 or to WP.3.5

WIND. LOCATION. (ADVICE WSV) NO OVERTAKING VSW. WIND. LOCATION

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

66

WP.6.1 CROSS WIND Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind

FAR
WIND LOCATION [ADVICE] WIND LOCATION [ADVICE]

NEAR
WIND LOCATION [ADVICE]

WITHIN

General

ADVICE

ADVICE

Go to WP2 or to WP.3.5
L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

WIND TRUCKS AVOID NEXT BRIDGE

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A WIND (ADVICE WSV)

SPECIAL CASES WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)

WIND AFTER LOCATION A TRUCKS AVOID NEXT BRIDGE

WIND TILL LOCATION A TRUCKS OVERTAKE FORBIDEN

WIND TILL LOCATION A TRUCKS OVERTAKE FORBIDEN

ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X ()

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X CASE UNDER STUDY () L.F.: 0.A, 2.A ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X () L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

67

WP.6.1 CROSS WIND Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind

FAR

NEAR
LOCATION [ADVICE] WIND LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION [ADVICE] WIND LOCATION (ADVICE)

LOCATION [ADVICE]

General

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)

AFTER LOC ATION A [ADVICE WSV]

[ADVICE WSV ] WIND TILL LOCATION A

[ADVICE VSW] WIND TILL LOCATION A

ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X ()

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X CASE UNDER STUDY ()

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X ()

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

68

WP.6.1 CROSS WIND Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind

FAR
LOCATION [ADVICE]

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

ADVICE

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)

AFTER LOC. A [ADVICE WSV]

[ADVICE WSV ]

[ADVICE VSW]

TILL LOCATION A

TILL LOCATION A

ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X ()

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X CASE UNDER STUDY ()

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X ()

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

69

WP.6.1 CROSS WIND Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind

FAR
LOCATION [ADVICE]

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)

LOCATION [ADVICE WSV]

[ADVICE WSV ]

[ADVICE VSW]

LOCATION

TILL LOCATION A

ADVICE

ADVICE

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X CASE UNDER STUDY ()

ADVICE

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X ()

TRUCKS AVOID BRIDGE X () L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

70

WP.6.1 CROSS WIND MS4 SIGNS Messages intended to warn against the existence of cross wind

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN

General

(LOCATION) (ADVICE)

(LOCATION) (ADVICE)

(LOCATION) (ADVICE)

ADVICE

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES WIND SENSITIVE VEHICLES (WSV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

71

WP6.3.1. Slippery road due to ice or snow

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

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

TEXT BOXES

FAR
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD. LOCATION. (ADVICE) Go to WP2

NEAR
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD. LOCATION. (ADVICE) Go to WP2

WITHIN
SNOW/ICE ON ROAD. LOCATION. (ADVICE) Go to WP2

General

ADVICE REROUTING

ADVICE REROUTING/SLOW DOWN

ADVICE SLOW DOWN

SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS

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 SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)

SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES

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

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

73

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
SNOW-ICE FROM LOCATION B TO LOCATION C SNOW-ICE [ADVICE]

NEAR
SNOW-ICE [ADVICE]

WITHIN

General

TRUCKS FORBIDEN AFTER LOCATION A USE ROAD X

TRUCKS FORBIDEN AFTER LOCATION A USE PARKING SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS

SPEED LIMIT 80km/h SNOW-ICE TILL LOCATION A

ADVICE

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

SPECIAL CASES SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

74

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

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)
ADVICE REROUTING/SLOW DOWN

WITHIN

General

LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE REROUTING

LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE 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 SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE REROUTING

SNOW-ICE LOCATION

SNOW-ICE LOCATION

SPECIAL CASES SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)

SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES LOCATION LOCATION LOCATION

ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

75

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
LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE REROUTING

NEAR
LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE SLOW DOWN

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

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 SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE REROUTING

LOCATION ADVICE

LOCATION ADVICE

SPECIAL CASES SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)

SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES LOCATION LOCATION ADVICE LOCATION

ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

76

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 [ADVICE]

FAR
LOCATION ADVICE

NEAR
LOCATION ADVICE

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)
ADVICE SLOW DOWN

General

ADVICE REROUTING

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 SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

LOCATION ADVICE
ADVICE REROUTING

LOCATION ADVICE

LOCATION (ADVICE)

SPECIAL CASES SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)

SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES LOCATION ADVICE LOCATION ADVICE LOCATION (ADVICE)

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

77

WP.6.3.1.1 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

NEAR

WITHIN

General

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE REROUTING

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE REROUTING/SLOW DOWN

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE 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 SPECIAL CASES - (1) SEVERE SNOW USE SNOW CHAINS

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE REROUTING

LOCATION

LOCATION

SPECIAL CASES SNOW-ICE SENSITIVE VEHICLES (SSV)

SPECIAL CASES - (2) PROHIBITED VEHICLES

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

LOCATION (ADVICE) ADVICE REROUTING/USE PARKING AREA

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

78

WP6.3.2. Slippery road due to excess of water

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

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

TEXT BOXES

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN
SLIPPERY ROAD. CAUSE. LOCATION. (ADVICE) SPEED LIMIT. SLIPPERY ROAD. LOCATION

General

SLIPPERY ROAD. CAUSE LOCATION. Go to WP2 or to WP.3.5

SLIPPERY ROAD. CAUSE. LOCATION. (ADVICE) SPEED LIMIT. SLIPPERY ROAD. LOCATION. Go to WP2 or to WP.3.5

SPECIAL CASES AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

80

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

FAR
SLIPPERY ROAD. (SPECIFY) LOCATION

NEAR
SLIPPERY ROAD LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
SLIPPERY ROAD LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

ADVICE

ADVICE

(NOTHING) WATER POOLS AQUAPLANNING

CAUSE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

81

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

FAR
(WATER POOLS) LOCATION

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE) SLIPPERY ROAD LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN

LOCATION (ADVICE) SLIPPERY ROAD LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

(NOTHING) WATER POOLS AQUAPLANNING

CAUSE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

82

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

FAR
WATER POOLS LOCATION

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

ADVICE

ADVICE

(NOTHING) WATER POOLS AQUAPLANNING

CAUSE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

83

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

FAR
WATER POOLS LOCATION

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

(NOTHING) WATER POOLS AQUAPLANNING

CAUSE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

84

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

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN

General

(WATER POOLS) (LOCATION)

(LOCATION) (ADVICE)

(LOCATION) (ADVICE)

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

(NOTHING) WATER POOLS AQUAPLANNING

CAUSE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A

SPECIAL CASES AQUA SENSITIVE VEHICLES (ASV)

CASE UNDER STUDY

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

85

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5 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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

89

WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available

TEXT BOXES

FAR
Mild congestion WP1.1 CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE. LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

NEAR
Mild congestion WP1.1 CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE. LOCATION. (ADVICE)

WITHIN
Mild congestion WP1.1 CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE. LOCATION. (ADVICE)

General

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

Mild congestion WP1.1 CONGESTION-TRAVEL TIME-EXIT AVAILABLE. TRAVEL TIME (CAUSE)

Mild congestion WP1.1 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE. TRAVEL TIMES. (ADVICE)

Mild congestion WP1.1 CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIME. EXIT AVAILABLETRAVEL TIME.(ADVICE)

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

90

WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available

FAR
CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE LOCATION. CAUSE/ADVICE

NEAR
CONGESTION-EXIT AVAILABLE LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
CONGESTION LOCATION EXIT AVAILABLE

General

CONGESTION. LOCATION EXIT AVAILABLE

CAUSE ADVICE

ADVICE

ADVICE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B CONGESTION TRAVEL TIME EXIT AVAILABLE- TRAVEL TIME

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B
CONGESTION TRAVEL TIME EXIT AVAILABLE-TRAVEL TIME

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

CAUSES

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

91

WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available

FAR
LOCATION (CAUSE) LOCATION

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
= 4 KM LOCATION AVAILABLE AVAILABLE

General

AVAILABLE

ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

ADVICE

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED AVAILABLE, FREE L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

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

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME

TRAVEL TIME [ TRAVEL TIME

CAUSES

ADVICE
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

92

WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available

FAR
LOCATION

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION AVAILABLE

LOCATION

General

AVAILABLE

ADVICE

ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

AVAILABLE FREE

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

L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME

TRAVEL TIME
[ TRAVEL TIME

CAUSES

ADVICE
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

TEXT

93

WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available

FAR
LOCATION

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN
LOCATION AVAILABLE

LOCATION

General

AVAILABLE

CAUSE ADVICE

ADVICE

TEXT

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

ADVICE

AVAILABLE FREE
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B TRAVEL TIME

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIME [ TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME

CAUSES

ADVICE
ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

TEXT

94

WP.1.2 CONGESTION EXIT AVAILABLE Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the road section, one exit available

FAR

NEAR

LOCATION (ADVICE )

LOCATION (ADVICE)

LOCATION AVAILABLE

General

LOCATION AVAILABLE

ADVICE

ADVICE

CAUSE ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT REROUTING
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

TEXT REROUTING
L.F.: 2.A, 2. B

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME

TRAVEL TIMES

TRAVEL TIME TRAVEL TIME

ADVICE

ADVICE

TEXT

TEXT

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

95

WP1.3. Congestion on next exit

WHOLE WORKING PACKAGE UNDER STUDY DRAFT 1

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

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

NEAR
CONGESTION ON EXIT. LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN

CONGESTION ON EXIT . LOCATION. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

General

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (CAUSE/ADVICE)

CONGESTION. TRAVEL TIMES. (ADVICE)

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

97

WP.1.3 CONGESTION ON NEXT EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the next exit available

EXIT A

FAR
CONGESTION ON EXIT. LOCATION (CAUSE/ADVICE)

NEAR
CONGESTION ON EXIT LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN

General

ADVICE

CAUSES

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

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

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

CONGESTION TRAVEL TIMES (CAUSE/ADVICE)

CAUSES

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT RIGHT LANE CLOSED ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

98

WP.1.3 CONGESTION ON NEXT EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the next exit available

EXIT A

FAR
LOCATION (CAUSE/ADVICE)

NEAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

WITHIN

General

ADVICE

CAUSES

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT

SLOW DOWN MODERATE SPEED

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

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

LOCATION TRAVEL TIMES

CAUSES

ROAD WORKS ACCIDENT

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

99

WP.1.3 CONGESTION ON NEXT EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the next exit available

EXIT A

FAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR

WITHIN

LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

CAUSES

ADVICE
LOCATION TRAVEL TIMES

TEXT

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

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

CAUSES

100

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

WP.1.3 CONGESTION ON NEXT EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the next exit available

EXIT A

FAR
LOCATION (ADVICE)

NEAR

WITHIN

LOCATION (ADVICE)

General

CAUSE ADVICE

ADVICE
LOCATION TRAVEL TIMES

TEXT

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

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME 101

CAUSES ADVICE

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

WP.1.3 CONGESTION ON NEXT EXIT Messages intended to warn against a traffic jam on the next exit available

EXIT A

FAR

NEAR

WITHIN

LOCATION (ADVICE )

General

LOCATION (ADVICE )

CAUSES

ADVICE
LOCATION TRAVEL TIMES

TEXT
L.F.: 0.A, 2.A, 2. B

L.F.: 1.A, 2.A, 3.1.A, 3.2.A, 4.1.A, 4.2.A, 1.B, 2. B

SPECIAL CASES -USE OF TIME

CAUSES

102

ESG4 GUIDELINES 2010 v.5

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

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

THE ESG4 GUIDELINES V.5

[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