INTERNATIONAL
TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES
TRANSPORTATION-MARKINGS
A STUDY IN COMMUNICATION
MONOGRAPH SERIES
Alternate Series Title: An Inter-modal Study of Safety Aids
Alternate T-M Titles: Transport [ation] Mark [ingls
Transport Marks
Way marks
roundatirms, 3rd edition, 1999 (Part A, Volume I,
First Studies in T-M) (2nd ed, 1991) (4th ed, Projected)
A First Study in T-M: The US, 2nd ed, 1992 (Part B, Vol I)
In ternational Marine Aids to Navigation, 2nd ed, 1988
(Parts C & I), Vol I)
[Unified 1st Edition of Parts A-D, 1981, University Press of
America]
Inienratronal Traffic Control Devices, 2nd ed, 2004 (Part
E, Vol Further Studies in T-M) (1st ed, 1984)
International Railway Signals, 1st ed, 1991 (Part F, Vol II)
International Aero Navigation, 1st ed, 1994 (Part G, Vol II)
T-M General Classification, 2nd ed, 2003 (Part H, Vol II)
(1st ed, 1994)
Transportation-Markings Database:
Marine, 1st ed, 1997 (Part Ii, Vol III, Additional Studies
in T-M)
TCD, 1st ed, 1998 (Part Vol III)
Railway, 1st ed, 2000 (Part Vol III)
Aero, 1st ed, 2001 (Part liv)
(2nd ed, Projected)
Transportation-Markings: A Historical Survey, I750-20110,
1st ed, 2002 (Part 3, Vol IV, Final Studies in T-M)
A Truly Integrative Transportation-Markings [Alternate
Title:  Transportation Markings as an Information System]
(Part K, Vol IV, Projected)
00000E1  a75
Transportation-Markings General Table of Contents
with Index, 2nd ed, 2003 (1st ed, 2002; 3rd ed, Projected)
INTERNATIONAL
TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES
Part E, Second Edition
Volume II, Further Studies
Transportation-Markings: A
Study in Communication
Monograph Series
Brian Clearman
Mount Angel Abbey 2004
Dedicated to the Memory of
RBC
1941-1958
Copyright (c) 2004 by Mount Angel Abbey
Library of Congress Cataloguing in Publication Data:
Clearman, Brian.
International traffic control devices. Part E / Brian
Clearman--2nd ed.
p. cm. -- (Transportation-markings : a study in
communication)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-918941-19-9
1. Traffic signs and signals. [ Title.
TA 1245.C56 2004
625.7'94--dc22 2004044849
NOTE: 1st ed (CEP) is listed as Transportation-Markings
rather than Traffic signs and signals. DC classification was
629.04'2 rather than 625.7'94?dc22.
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE 10
CHAPTER 1
THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRAFFIC CONTROL
DEVICES, 1909-1950
A European Traffic Signs
1 Introduction 15
2 European Traffic Signs, 1909-1926-1931 17
3 The Old British System (OBS), 1903-1950 23
B Final League of Nations/Initial United Nations Traffic
Signs System
1 Introduction and League of Nations, 1938-1939 26
2 United Nations Protocol 1949 35
C Traffic Signs Developments in Africa/Middle East/
Asia/Pacific/Americas 1925-1950
1 Early Africa/Middle East/Asia/Pacific/Americas 40
a) The Americas 40
h) Africa/Middle East/Asia/Pacific 43
2 More Recent Africa: CASATC 46
D Traffic Signals & Traffic Markings To 1950
1 Introduction 53
2 Traffic Signals 53
3 Traffic Markings 56
CHAPTER 2
CLASSIFICATION WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES
A The Classification Revisited
1 Introduction to Chapter 2 59
2 The Revisting of the Classification 60
5
a) The 4th Digit Problem: Aids Affected by it/Aids
not Affected by it 60
b) Classifying Principle: 4th-Digit May Represent
Categories not Separate Aids 62
3 Changes in Classification Messages 64
B Classification & Notes
1 The Main Classification 66
2 Explanatory Notes 68
General Note 74
3 Variant Classification for TCD 75
General Note 7 9
CHAPTER 3
TRAFFIC SIGNALS WITH INTRODUCTION TO
ENTI LIES SPONSORING SIGNALS
A Introduction
1 Introduction to Chapter 80
2 The UN Draft Convention, 1952 81
3 The IAMM of TCDs 83
4 Code for TCD, ECAFE 8 5
5 Outgrowths of the 1952 Draft Convention 86
6 Changes and Reformation of Older Systems, 1950-
1967
a) Introduction & United Kingdom 87
b) Scandinavia 89
c) Canadian TCDs 89
d) The United States 90
e) The Threshold of 1968: Divergence and Unity 91
B Traffic Signals
1 Introduction   Traffic Signal Before 1968
a) Introduction 93
b) Terms 94
c) Traffic Signals, 1952-1967 95
2 Traffic Signals: 1968 and After
6
a) Documents Preceeding UN 1968 96
b) 1968 UN Conference: Traffic Signal Messages 98
c) Changes After 1968: Europe and North America 100
CHAPTER 4
WARNING & INFORMATIVE SIGNS
A Warning Signs, 1952-1968
1 Introduction 10 3
2 1952-1967 104
3 UN 1968 Danger Warning Signs 106
4 Regional & National Changes & Implementations 111
B Informative Signs
1 Introduction 114
2 Informative Signs, 1952-1967 114
3 UN 1968 and Informative Signs
a) Changes in Drafts 116
b) Signs in UN 1968 118
c) Aftermath of UN 1968: Implementation 
Changes 12 2
CHAPTER 5
REGULATORY SIGNS
A Regulatory Signs Before 1968
1 Introduction 126
2 Regulatory Signs, 1952-1967 127
B UN 1968 & Aftermath
1 The Building of the UN System 131
2 The Problem of the Red Oblique Bar 135
3 Regulatory Signs at UN 1968 143
4 Aftermath of UN 1968: Regulatory Signs 147
7
CHAPTER 6
TRAFFIC MARKINGS
A Introduction Traffic Markings Before 1968
1 Introduction. 153
2 Traffic Markings, 1952-1967 155
B UN 1968: Traffic Markings
1 Review of Drafts 158
2 UN 1968 Provisions 1 59
3 Aftermath of UN 1968 162
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
i Classification System Terms 168
ii Message Characteristics Terms 170
iii Marking Types Terms 172
iv Transportation Terms 174
v  Political Terms 17 5
APPENDIX II
A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL
ROAD SIGNS, 1909-1968
i Introduction 177
ii The Chart 182
iii Explanatory Notes 199
8
iv Sign Shapes and Color Formats 199
a) Sign Shape Illustrations 200
b) Sign Shapes 208
c) Systems Use of Color 210
BIBLIOGRAPHY
i Abbreviations for Sources 217
ii Books, Journals & Reports (Non-Governmental
Sources) 219
iii UN Sources
a) UN Conference on Road Traffic 221
b) Other UN Sources 222
iv Other Government Sources 223
INDEXES
General Index 227
Index of Names 231
Index of T-M Phenomena 237
9
PREFACE FOR SECOND EDITION
This edition of Part E prepared nearly 20 years after
the 1st edition offers a significant change in direction. The
1st edition focussed on TCD systems (with a historical
undergirding). Traffic Signs, Traffic Signals, Traffic
Markings played a secondary role in that edition. In this
edition the focus is on T-M forms before systems. History
and systems are present but in a more secondary role.
This approach more closely follows the modal
approach of the other monographs on international TCD
themes (Marine in 1988 [2nd edi, Railroad in 1992, Aero in
1994). Systems played a smaller role with other T-M forms
than with TCD. Lighthouses, for example, are a markedly
independent aid with little employment of systems. While
other marine T-M forms gradually became parts of sys-
tems, nonetheless, an individual character was retained.
Systems were more a part of railway signals yet a domi-
nation of signals by trans-national conferences and
resulting documents was less often present. Aero naviga-
tion has occupied an intermediate ground of independent
aids and interrelated aids.
However, a near domination by systems has been
clearly present with TCD forms. Even simple devices
became parts of interrelated groups and, in time, systems
regulating devices and interrelations took place. That
systems focus was present with the first edition of Part E:
signs, signals, surface markings were subsumed into of
regional and global scope. This edition places more
10
emphasis on T-M phenomena and moves systems at least
slightly off center field. The older edition retains
importance for a more system-orientated approach.
This edition includes a reworked main classifiction as
well as a variant classification new to Part E. Both the
reworked main classification and variant classification are
found in the General Classification (Part E, 1994 and
2003). Some further work on classifications was carried out
for this edition. The original preface is retained though
acknowledgements for the 1st ed are omitted.
PREFACE FOR FIRST EDITION
Volume II of  Transportation-Markings: A Study in
Communication continues the studies that were begun in
the first volume. The earlier volume reviewed communi-
cation concepts -- especially those of semiotics and of the
role of color in T-M -- and it presented a survey of surface,
air, and marine markings in the US. That volume ended
with a brief examination of one part of international
Transportation-Markings -- that of marine aids to naviga-
ti on.
Volume II will continue the international studies
begun in the last part of the first volume. There are three
intended parts to Volume IL Part E, Traffic Control
Devices; Part F, Railroad Signals; Part G, Aeronautical
Navigation Aids. Each of the three parts will be published
as it is finished. While it is necessary to publish each of the
parts separately, it is hoped that all three can be republished
together at a later date.
The limited nature of this monograph cannot begn to
encompass the complete field of traffic control devices; the
11
discipline is both vast and rapidly changing. Even a cursory
resume of technical advances would require several
massive tomes. Technical libraries, as a matter of policy,
maintain only current materials and discard the growing
collections of outdated materials. Therefore, it becomes
necessary (and this is perhaps paradoxical) to narrow the
scope of this study in order for it to be truly inter-national.
The study is broad in the sense that it intends to examine
officially sanctioned and agreed-upon traffic control
devices wherever found; it is narrow in the sense that the
study is restricted to the established forms of traffic control
devices. Hence, the study may not be "up to the minute" or
represent the "state of the art." It also avoids a primarily
technological exposition of traffic control devices (TCDs).
It focusses on TCDs as communications and specifically on
the symbols and other devices that create and project
messages to the motorist. In other words, the monograph
has selected a "strata" in the complex of traffic control
devices and follows that strata wherever it crops up;
adjoining strata are left untouched.
This study is based on regional and global conferences
on traffic control devices: signs, signals and pavement
markings. It gives some attention to national systems when
they are of major significance. This means, regretably, that
nuances and limited varations on the local level may not
receive full attention. Of course the spreading influence of
international agreements has had major impact on local and
isolated situations and thereby reduces the variant forms of
traffic control devices.
The agreements that are germane to this study include
only current agreements but also those promulgated  at
various times in the twentieth century. This is necessary
since no agreement, no system exists in isolation. The older
12
systems and understandings have influenced and shaped
succeeding systems. No adequate understanding of the
present systems of TCDs can be gained without examining
earlier systems. Further, nations and regions have utilized
other systems and produced "hybrid" systems of TCDs.
Only an examination of competing and obsolete systems
will sufficiently illustrate how the hybrids and local
practices came into existence.
This study can not be considered a compendium of
TCDs. Hopefully it will provide an introduction to them as
a means of human communications.
A NOTE ON NOTES
Volume H does not include the traditional form of
notes whether these be footnotes or endnotes. Volume H
has instead adopted the "author-date" system as presented
in the 13th edition of the University of Chicago Press
Chicago Manual of Style. While older editions of the
Manual included the "author-date" system it was not until
the 1982 edition that the University of Chicago Press gave
the premier position in their coverage of source
identification systems to the "author-date" approach. The
value of choosing unnumbered over other forms of notes is
under- girded by the economics of author-date: simplicity
reduces costs to author, editor and printer. The 15th edition
of the Manual of 2003 continues the "author-date system."
The notes in this monograph will include the author,
date of publication of the source and page number. In many
instances the reader can quickly locate the full entry in the
Bibliography with only the name of the author. But since
many of the sources come from international organizations,
and since publications of that parentage often come
13
equipped with complex and convoluted titles, it has proven
necessary to preface the Bibliography with a list of the
abbreviated authors and the corresponding full title.
A limited number of substantative notes are,
nonetheless, required for this study. These notes will be
found at the conclusion of the chapters. The reader will be
alerted to the presence of these notes by a brief entry in the
text.
The acronym "TISRP" found in many of the notes
stands for "This Is the Source for the Remainder of the
Paragraph." The use of the acronym reduces unnecessary
repetition of source references while providing necessary
documentation.
14
CHAPTER ONE
THE DEVELOPMENT OF
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES: 1909-1950
1A European Traffic Signs
lA 1 Introduction
This chapter focusses on Traffic Control Devices up
to 1950. The greater part of the chapter focusses on Traffic
Signs. The focus on signs is dictated by greater complexity
with signs than other safety aids and by less attention to
Traffic Markings and Traffic Signals in earlier systems.
While T-M phenomena is given increased attention in this
edition the role of systems remains significant. Those
systems include systems of a global nature (at least by
intent) as well as regional systems. There is, to be sure, no
hard and fast line between the earliest official systems and
signs and their organization of a precursor nature. For
example, Krampen notes the vital role of early 20th century
national systems for international efforts. Sign forms in the
United Kingdom became a vital foundation of sign shapes
in European-wide efforts and beyond. Sign symbols in
Germany likewise became a core dimension of sign sym-
bols over a broad area (Krampen 1983, 44-47). Krampen
and Lay note the role of recycling clubs in 19th century and
non-government organizations in laying foundations for
national and international systems of signs (Krampen 1983,
39, 42; Lay 1992, 109). T-M Histoty  (Part J in this Series)
offers a survey of these developments (pages 45-47). It is
sufficient here to note the incorporation of pre-govern-
mental efforts in international governmental systems.
The first edition of this work focussed very heavily on
15
the UN 1968 Convention. This 2nd edition also gives
prominence to UN though other factors are given increased
coverage especially in the Classification and in descriptions
of types of traffic control devices. Various ideas from
national and regional practices came together at UN 1968
yet those ideas retained an identity of their own and were
not merely components which became entirely subsumed
into the UN system.
The colors, shapes, and other symbols of traffic control
devices in the second half of the 20th century as seen in UN
1968 -- and in systems apart from UN 1968 -- are a
constant feature of urban and rural landscapes. Such
devices have become such a ubiquitious feature that they
may seem to have existed in profusion in their familiar
form from ancient times, or at least since the last century or
so. But that is not the case. Most of the ingredients of the
Traffic control devices system originated in the earlier
periods of the 20th century.
Krampen notes three major systems or movements
before 1968: an European system, an American system and
an African system; GERSS concur in this perception
(Krampen 1983, 102). Usborne suggets four systems but
his fourth system is that of GERSS which draws on the
other three systems (Usborne 1967, 20). The European
approach is multi-faceted. It includes 1909, 1926, and 1931
agreements. The incomplete 1938-1939 effort also needs to
be included. Those endeavors which were under League of
Nations auspices were essentially an European production.
Even the 1949 UN Protocol, though ostensibly a global
effort, was yet another version of the European system. The
American system was essentially US in its earlier forms
though the involvment of other nations in the Western
Hemisphere moved the system toward greater usage of
graphic symbols. Canadian practices offer an added
16
dimension to TCDs. The African system as filtered through
Central and Southern African Conference in 1950 pre-
sented a third way involving European notions but also
heavy employment of the English system which may be
termed the Old British System. The 1952 UN effort is also
a vital component that was global in scope and
incorporated ideas from many sources.
UN Conference on Road Traffic refers to two
conventions: one on road traffic, and one on road signs and
signals (UN 1968, 4). Road signs and signals (and also
pavement markings) is of primary interest in this study. The
Road Traffic Convention is related to TCD forms but has
no direct role here. That convention includes two primary
themes: rules of the road, and the entrance of various forms
of motor vehicles into international traffic.
1A2 European Traffic Signs: 1909-1926-1931
The nature of the 1909 road safety agreement,
"Convention with Respect to the International Circulation
of Motor Vehicles," was very European in orientation. At
that period European nations substantially dominated the
world in many respects and quite possibly viewed their
concerns as synonymous with international concerns
including matters relating to traffic needs. The majority of
European nations were present at the 1909 Conference.
Scandinavia, however, was not represented. Sweden,
Norway, Denmark (which then included Iceland), were
absent. Finland, a Grand Duchy of Russia was represented
through Russia. According to the Conference papers only
"mother countries" were included unless possessions were
explicitly mentioned. Great Britain included its possessions
under an imperial sounding title of "The British Dominions
Beyond the Seas." (ICMV Protocol 1909).
17
The major topics of the meeting included standards
for motor vehicles (these called for "a strong steering
apparatus which will allow the car to be turned readily and
with certainty," and the "machinery must be so designed as
to prevent ... danger of fire or explosion"), driver
requirements, international trade passes, license plates,
sounding mechanisms, provisions for motorcycles, and
encountering and passing of other (ICMV 1909, Articles 1-
7). A single article was devoted to traffic control devices:
"Provisions of Notice-boards on the Highways" (ICMV
1909, Article 8).
"Notice-boards" have the meaning ascribed to warning
signs of a later period. All 1909 signs covered by the agree-
ment are concerned with dangers. The descriptions of the
signs are brief and illustrations are provided in Annexe "D"
of the Convention. Notice-boards are located outside of
towns and cities, and, seemingly, are not intended for in-
town usage; in fact, the document does not mention signs
for towns and cities (ICMV 1909, Article 8). Placement of
signs required that the signs are to be positioned ca. 25
meters (82') from the point of concern (ICMV 1909, Art.
8).
The types of notice-boards included "unevent road
("cassis"), sharp turns ("virage"), level-crossing ("passage
a niveau"; US parlance: railroad grade crossing), cross-
roads ("croissment") (ICMV 1909, Annexe "D"). 1926
signs display the same illustrations as those of 1909 though
with variant names for some of the sign types (ICRMT
1926, 27; ICMV 1909, Annexe "D"). Seemingly, the
meaning or intent of the sign remains constant though the
terms that describe the graphic symbols are altered, perhaps
to clarify the significance of the sign.
18
The 1926 "International Convention Relative to
Motor Traffic" is a modification of the 1909 documents as
can be seen by a comparison of the two documents. The
1926 document offers necessary alterations and expansion
in the face of the growing motor vehicle phenomenon (see
"aside" on following page. The makeup of the the
conference participants reflects the aftermath of World War
I. Germany was absent since it was not yet in the good
graces of the European community (ICRMT 1926, 10-12).
Again Scandinavia was noticeably absent with the
exception of recently independent Finland. The Swiss
government was also absent. Unlike the 1909 Conference
there were non-European participants: Siam (Thailand),
Egypt, Cuba, and Uruguay. This meeting, like that of the
1909 Conference, was held in Paris under the auspices of
the French Republic (ICRMT 1926, 7-9, 28-30)
The 1909 Convention introduced, in a formal and
international sense, the idea of traffic signs, but it did not
take up color or shape of signs. The 1926 meeting added
shape, at least in an elementary sense, to traffic signs
(ICRMT 1926, 27). The nearly ubiquitious triangular sign
can be traced to the 1926 agreement (ICRMT 1926, 27).
Signals, for the present era, mean lighted and often flashing
signs; but in 1926 the term meant traffic signs. The 1909
term "notice-boards" drop out and is replaced by "danger
signals" (ICRMT 1926, 27; ICMV 1909, Article 8).
The participants were asked to "reserve exclusively
the triangular form for these [danger] signs" to the fullest
degree possible (ICRMT 1926, 27). The triangles were to
be equilateral, and the sides were to be no less than 0.70m
(30"). A hollow sign was permitted "when the atmospheric
conditions were not favourable" for the standard solid
signs. This variant of the sign does not have to include the
appropriate message. These signs could be as little as
19
0.46m (18") on a side. Signs were to be at least 100m
(328') from the obstacle in question, and a maximum of
250m (820'). (ICRMT 1926, 27).
Four of the six signs of 1926 (termed "danger sig-
nals") are identical with the 1909 versions, though as al-
ready noted, the English language version of the sign titles
may be at variance with that of 1909. For example, gutter
becomes "uneven road", sharp turn becomes "bend"
(ICRMT 1926, 27; ICMV 1909, Annexe "D"). Level-
crossings retain the same symbol but the French form adds
"garde" to "Passage a' niveau" and the English form adds
"with barrier" to "level-crossing (ICRMT 1926, 27). The
changes were prompted by a new crossing sign for un-
guarded crossings and termed "level crossing unguarded"/
"passage a niveau non garde" (ICRMT 1926, 27). The final
sign type is the hollow sign already referred to. (ICRMT
1926, 27). It is a standard triangle, and termed a "signal
marque" in French and a "hollow sign" in English (ICRMT
1926, 27).
The 1931 agreement occupies a transitional position in
the five European agreements and international agreements
of the European system referring to road signs, signals, and
pavement markings in the 20th century (LN ECRT 1931).
This agreement goes beyond the concerns of the 1909 and
1926 agreements both of which focusses on danger signs.
But it also parallels earlier agreements in that signals and
pavement markings are both absent. It is the first con-
ference under the auspices of a general international
organization, in this the League of Nations*
*An aside: The 1926 Conference has an uncertain
character about it. It involves the League of Nations but it
also involves a French government sponsored meeting.
Two strains of ideas and organizations somehow came
20
together. But the precise process is difficult to untangle.
The 1926 Conference includes references to ratifying the
documents through the French government. The League of
Nations is seemingly not mentioned. See the 1926
Conference papers, T-M History (Part J in this Series), and
other sources including Krampen.
The scope of the 1931 conference, seemingly, was
confined to the European region, as can be seen in the title,
"European Conference on Road Traffic." The Conference
has the further distinction of including the least number of
nations of any international conference on road traffic
control devices: ten nations and the Free City of Danzig.
The membership included France, Germany, Italy,
Switzerland, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Denmark (LN
ECRT 1931, 4-6). Scandinavia (except for Denmark),
Britain, Ireland, Austria, the Netherlands, the Baltic States,
USSR and most of southern European were absent.
Nonetheless, in excess of sixty per-cent of the European
population -- excluding that of the USSR -- was
represented at the Conference. Most of the participating
nations were from western continental Europe.
The titles of the Conference document, "Convention
Concerning the Unification of Road Signals" (CCURS)
may create confusion since "signals" in the 1931 document
means signs not traffic signals (The French version has
"signalization routierre" (CCURS 1931). Lighted traffic
signals are excluded in the 1931 deliberations. This is
rather surprizing since a number of traffic signals were in
existence in that time. It is possible that the still
experimental nature of signals, and uncertainty about colors
contributed to the exclusion of signals. Traffic signals
became commonplace in England and Germany only after
mid-1920s (T-M History, 66). Road markings are also
missing from that document. This may not be surprizing
21
since markings were not well developed and commonplace
at the that time.
Most 1931 danger-warning signs of the 1931
agreements were from the 1926 agreement. While most of
the innovations in signs are in the area of what became
known as regulatory and informative signs. Even though
the Convention was attended by few nations it brought into
prominence a variety of sign shapes and messages which
continue to be used heavily. These include place and
direction signs, prohibition, maximum speed signs, parking
and waiting prohibition signs. (LN ECRT 1931, Annex 6-7;
Tables I, II, III).
The second Appendix of the study provides details on
the 1931 sanctioned signs. However, it does not provide
details on color codes. Contrary to later agreements, colors
are not always provided for certain classes of signs in LN
ECRT 1931, and therefore it is not feasible to provide a full
comparative examination of this topic. The 1931 agreement
stipulated that when optional use colors are employed they
must be used consistently throughout a given national
territory (LN ECRT 1931, Annex 6). No colors are given
for danger signs in the 1931 Convention. The "Signs
Prohibition Passage" segment of "Signs Giving Definite
Instructions" requires the predominance of red, which must
be so employed "as to bring into relief the general contours
of the sign" Other colors in such signs are optional;
exceptions are to be found even in optional-use situations.
(LN ECRT 1931, Annex 6).
Optional-use situations include the "road closed to all
vehicles" signs, which has a white or "pale yellow" center
within a red disc; the one-way road sign, which displays a
white or "pale yellow" horizontal bar with a red disc (LN
ECRT 1931, 6). Several other signs have the same motif
22
with the addition of figures giving prohibitions on certain
types of vehicles or weight or speed limits. More at vari-
ance is the "waiting prohibited sign," which has a blue cen-
ter within a "wide red border with a diagonal red stroke"
(LN ECRT 1931, 6-7). The parking prohibited sign exhibits
a red disc with white center (or pale yellow) with a large
"P" beneath a diagonal red stroke (LN ECRT 1931, 6-7).
The "Direction to be followed sign" (within the
"signs indicating an obligation" category) can be of option-
al colors "provided that red shall never predominate" (LN
ECRT 1931, 7, TISRP). Custom house signs consist of a
red disc with the conventional white or pale yellow center
and "with a dark horizontal stroke." The word "customs" is
inscribed on the disc in the national language. "Signs giv-
ing indications only" subscribe to the optional colors motif
(providing that red does not dominate). Parking signs are to
be rectangular with "blue for choice, bearing the letter P."
Caution signs have a body of dark color and triangle in
white or pale yellow. It was recommended that first-aid
signs be rectangular in shape with a dark body "surrounded
by a white stripe, and the centre of the plate bearing an ap-
propriate emblem within a white square ... ." No recom-
mendations for color are given for place and direction
signs.
1A3 The "Old British System" (OBS), 1903-1950
What is sometimes referred to as the "Old British
System" of road signs stemmed primarily from the work
of a committee of the British Ministry of Transport known
as the "1933 Committee" (UK HADTS, 1-2, TISRP).
However, the foundations of British road signs can be
traced back to parliamentary legislation in 1903. The
OBS continued its development until its final alterations
and extensions in 1957.
23
The double-sign concept which was an integral part of
British signage (including that of British colonial and some
commonwealth political units) also dates back to 1903 and
1904. There are some indications of cross-fertilization
between the older signs. Nonetheless, the approaches to
signage were at variance.
The warning signs outlined in the Motor Car Act of
1903, and presented in a circular of 1904, included these
signs: hazardous corners, cross-roads, and steep grades
signs. Warning signs were to be marked by a "hollow red
triangle," and attached to this would be a plate with the
appropriate representation of the hazard. Prohibitory signs
were marked by a "solid red disc." (UK HADTS, 1-2).
A circular on signs in 1921 includes the previously
mentioned signs (in 1904 circular) and adds a provision
that route numbers for roads were to be added to the arms
of direction posts. The red triangle of 1904 is termed a
"danger sign" in 1921, and the two-part sign, concept is
strengthened by the addition of a symbol and word
inscription to the rectangular plate below the triangle. (UK
HADTS, 1-2).
In 1931 the Ministry of Transport established a
committee with the assigned task of studying the current
British sign system and of offering ideas on change. New
sign formats were added as a result of the study (UK
HADTS, 1-2, TISRP). The "Report of the 1933
Committee" (which was the common title of the Report)
provided the foundations of the British sign system until
the establishment of the Protocol system between the years
of 1964 and 1967 in Britain. A later committee, in 1944,
proposed additional changes; however, the corrunitee's
views were not issued until 1950. Finally, limited
alterations in 1957 added pictorial signs. The OBS in this
24
study refers to the 1957 version. The 1933 phase, as
previously noted, held a predominant significance
throughout the life of the OBS. It can be noted that the
OBS was essentially completed by 1950.
The System's signs are divided into two categories:
"Prohibitory and Mandatory" and "Warning and Inform-
ative" (UK MT, TISRP) and source for paragraph). A chart
of OBS verbally describes prohibitory signs as "YOU
MUST NOT,"  and mandatory signs as  MUST BE OBEY-
ED." These signs, as is the case with most OBS signs, are
two-part signs. The upper part of the sign is comprised of a
circle. Red is a common color for these signs. In some
instances red entirely colors the sign while in other in-
stances red serves as a border color or some other func-
tion. In most instances, the lower plate of these signs is
rectangular in shape. In some cases the long dimension is
vertical while in other situations it is horizontal. All of the
lower signs have a black rim, white ground, and black
legend.
The second category, that of "Warning and
Informative" signs, consists of a triangle accompanied by a
rectangular plate with the long dimension vertical (UK MT,
TISRP). The triangles uniformly exhibit a red border with a
white ground. The rectangular signs display a black rim,
black symbol, and white ground. There were several
exceptions to this practice. In one case a sign displayed a
rectangular shape with the horizontal as the longer
dimension, and in another the sign was of circular shape.
25
1B Final League of Nations/Initial United Nations
TCD Work
1B1 Introduction and League of Nations, 1938-1939
The final League of Nations effort at traffic control
devices preceded World War II and, in fact, was interrupted
and rendered incomplete by that conflict. Not many years
after the end of the war an initial United Nations effort was
undertaken (UN Conference on Road Traffic, 1949). Both
had global intents though both proved to be less than global
in actuality: both were slanted toward the European
experience. This subchapter reviews those two endeavors
that bracket World War II
A review of sign codes with an European cast would
appear to follow this chronology: Paris 1909, Paris 1926
(With ties to LN though not fully a LN project), LN
Geneva 1931, UN Geneva 1949. But an examination of the
1949 and 1931 codes suggests a very great leap in the
numbers and types of signs from 1931 to 1949. One might
deduce, or at least speculate, there was an intervening
"missing link." This speculation would prove to be true
since there is a "missing link," or at least an obscured link
between 1931 and 1949. This link, in a sense, is hidden
since it never reached a definitive state and never was
published. The documents are to some degree not readily
available because of confidentiality generated by their
unfinished state.
This link is the product of the Committee of Experts on
the Codification of Law (hereafter, CERCL), a component
of the Communications and Transport Group of the League
of Nations. CERCL with the aids of other groups (espe-
cially the Committee on Road Traffic) met periodically
26
over much of 1938 and 1939. The fruits of their efforts was
the document "Draft Regulations." While not a definitive
product it was, nonetheless, approaching a completed state.
What might have been the final meeting was scheduled for
September of 1939, but that month marked the beginning of
the catacyclism of World War II (LN DCT--CERCL RTS
1939, 10). The movement toward toward agreement on the
thorny issue of traffic signs was not mirrored by a
movement toward peace. The unfinished work of CERCL
would not be taken up again until 1949.
It needs be emphasized that in a discussion of the
League of Nations "Committee of Experts for the Codifi-
cation of Road Law" the documents did not reach a defini-
tive state, even though the mention of minutes and regula-
tions in this study might suggest a complete state. Neither
should the degree of completion of CERCL be confused
with the degree of completion of GERSS. The GERSS
"Draft Convention" by contrast was complete and was
ready for either signature or for conference level
deliberations.
Principal documents of CERCL include the Reports of
the Committee: lst Session (two reports), 2nd Session, and
3rd Session; and the "Draft Regulations." The illustrations
of the proposed new signs were separately printed (LN
DCT-CERCL RFS 1938 (2); RSS 1938; RTS 1939; Tbl.
Ill.). The 1st Session did not consider road signs while the
2nd Session (November 21-30, 1938) examined road signs
in detail. The first topic of that session dealt with the
coloring of sign posts (LN DCT-CERCL 1938, RTS, 15, ).
It becomes evident in the discussion of signposts that
CERCL did not have exclusive rights over the matter of
road signs. An additional committee, the "Special
Committee on Signs at Railway Crossings," had separately
27
established the requirements for signposts at level-
crossings. These were to be "painted in alternate stripes of
red and white, or red and light yellow ... ." CERCL shelved
the question of painting sign posts since some signs do not
have posts, and further, the painting of sign posts "can well
be left to the competent authorities in each country." The
reference to level-crossings is not included in the "Draft
Regulations," though it is to be found in the 1949 Protocol
(see UN 1949 Protocol, 84-85).
Treatment of danger signs in 1938 began with an
examination of signs at level-crossings (LN-DCT-CERCL,
RSS 1938, 15-16). The 1931 agreement spoke of "guarded"
and "unguarded" crossings; CERCL removed the
ambiguity by changing the titles to "level crossings with
gates" and "level crossings without gates." It was further
agreed that sign No. 7 can be either a vertical bar, almost of
a lozenge shape, or an "!" point. The 1931 Convention
added a sign of triangular shape with a point downwards
that has the meaning of motorists must yield to motor
vehicles travelling on road which is being approached. It
was noted in CERCL discussions that the sign had
considerable value in the nations which employed it, and it
was retained by CERCL. The much later US "Yield" sign
is a derivative of this sign (Kell 1958, 2-4).
The CERCL discussion on right of ways and priority
roads would prove to have implications for safety
conferences for many years (LN DCT-CERCL 1938, RSS,
16-18). The complexity of the problem and the uncertainty
surrounding it caused the Committee to call for a collection
of right of way practices of various nations; some of the
Committee documents are comprised of these practices.
The matter of sign colors was also broached by CERCL. It
was noted that no sign colors were officially in use. The
28
1931 code had remarked that danger signs should employ a
"dark colour on a light ground or a light color on a dark
ground" but made no specific recommendations. That same
convention also stated that the hollow triangle sign could
be "painted in any colour," and the point-downward
triangle could have a dark border and light center, or a
single color without. This situation prompted CERCL to
also request information on color codes for signs. The
second session ended with observations that a further
sessions was needed and that the participation of the US
was to be encouraged. (LN DCT-CERCL 1938, RSS, 16-
18).
The 3rd Session is markedly important since that
session issued a report of CERCL's deliberations including
a full-scale draft of road signs, and a table of illustrations
(LN DCT-CERCL, RTS 1939, DR 1939, Tbl III., 1939).
The format of these documents is based on the arrangement
of signs established in 1931. CERCL endorsed the
differentiation already in use in Europe of triangular-
shaped signs for danger, circular-shaped signs for both
prohibitory and mandatory signs, and rectangular-shaped
signs for "caution or special indications" (LN DCT-
CERCL 1939, RTS, 3).
Danger signs continue the point-upwards triangular
shape (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 3-5). However, the
1931 signs in CERCL were of simple and stark form
including turn symbols that were sharp, and very
unequivocal cross-road signs. In 1938-1939 a need was
seen for variant forms of the earlier signs. For example,
single bend and double bend signs as well as sharp bend
signs were required for traffic safety. Level crossing signs
were to follow the pattern set down in the "Draft
Regulations" for that function. This session also approved
29
"School entrances" signs with necessary variant forms.
Later sign codes would include a similar sign under the title
of "Children" rather than "School Entrances." The draft
document permitted two forms of the "Other Dangers"
sign: The established vertical bar signs and the "!" form.
The addition of a supplemental plate was permitted for the
"Other Dangers" sign which would explain the nature of
the danger. (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 3-5).
UN 1949 Protocol, however, provides for an "Other
Dangers" sign that contains a vertical bar or symbol for
danger; a supplemental plate is also allowed (UN Protocol,
89). The hollow sign continued in the 1938-1939
documents with the provision for a supplemental plate
which explains the specific danger. The "Priority of
Passage" sign of 1931 is also retained (LN DCT-CERCL
1939, RTS, 5). The instructions for the meaning of this sign
were written so as to avoid irritating nations not accepting
the "passage of priority" concept. The United Kingdom, for
example, did not accept the idea of priority at that time, but
did accept the idea of reducing speed or stopping at the
juncture with a more important road. The request for data
on sign colors at the second session was completed. It was
found that the "number of colour systems was not large."
(LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 5).
Prohibitory and Mandatory Signs (with "or" rather
than "and" in the Draft document) were termed "Signs
Giving Definite Instructions" in 1931 and again in 1949,
but there was no encompassing title for 1938-1939 (LN
DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 5,). The color of red was given a
major role in prohibitory signs. It is to dominate the sign, as
well as serve for the border color. Seven of the eight 1931
signs were retained by CERCL, though the speed limit sign
requirements permitted the national unit of measurement in
30
place of the 1931 rule requiring the national unit of
measurement had to be in kilometers. The remaining sign,
sign 7, is dropped since that sign was seen to be a
duplication of sign 6. Sign 6 was a weight limit sign, while
sign 7 was identical except for the addition of an
illustration of a vehicle (LN 1931 CCURS, Table II; in
addition to previous source). CERCL introduced one new
sign: a bicycle prohibition sign (LN DCT CERCL 1939,
RTS, 5: Tbl III).
Parking signs proved to be a problem for CERCL; this
would also continue to be a difficulty for later sign code
attempts. (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 5-6). The 1931
Convention included one sign for waiting and a second for
parking. But CERCL noted a basic problem was the
uncertainty over the meaning of "stopping," "waiting," and
"parking." CERCL decided that stopping was of "brief
duration"; "waiting" could be of "any length"; and
"stopping" referred to dropping off or picking up
passengers or freight. The act of parking was a formal
placement of a motor vehicle in a parking slot for a period
of time. CERCL, based upon its study of terms, added a
stopping sign to the list of approved signs. This new sign
had one oblique bar. CERCL eliminated the 1931 "No
Parking" sign, since it was thought "that all that is needed
in the case of parking is to have a sign showing where
parking is allowed." A more realistic view might regard
this reasoning as quaint, since it is evident that humankind
will park vehicles in every conceivable -- and
inconceivable -- space even if "No Parking" signs are
arranged in serried ranks. The Committee also added a sign
for indicating height or width restrictions. CERCL also
included a prohibitory sign to address situations not
considered in the signal code. The message of that sign was
imprinted in the center of the sign disk. (LN DCT- CERCL
31
1939, RTS, 5-6).
The Committee also examined the issue of
overtaking (passing) and whether there was a need for such
an overtaking sign (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 7-8).
CERCL decided against that sign but, nonetheless, they
"recommend [ed] a uniform model for such signs ..." for
nations needing such a sign. The sign could represent "two
motor vehicles side by side in the center of the disc ... one
red and the other black ...," or the figure with two arrows,
proposed by the Committee on Road Traffic ... ." CERCL
preferred the arrow form. Both models are found in UN
1968. Also considered by CERCL was a possible sound
restriction sign but this did not gain much support (LN
DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 7-8).
Mandatory signs exhibit blue disks with the
appropriate symbol in the center (LN DCT-CERCL 1939,
RTS, 7-8). CERCL included three mandatory signs: a
"Direction of Travel" sign, a "Bike Route" sign and a "De-
prohibition sign". The last name displays a disc in white or
gray ground with black oblique band. The Committee on
Road Traffic also discussed how to indicate the end of a
prohibition since at the time there was no general use sign
for that purpose. CERCL noted that the United Kingdom
indicated the end of a speed-limit sign with a "white disc
with an oblique band." The band was to be black in color.
(LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 7-8).
The Caution or Indication signs segment also lacked
an overarching title (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 8). The
caution segment of this category is a relic of the time since
no current signs are of the older caution form. These signs
were proposed by CERCL. The Indication signs, however,
provide components of more current informative signs. The
32
caution signs referred to schools and children. The second
category, "Indication" signs, encompassed what are now
the sub-categories of Indication, Advance Direction and
Direction, and Place and Route Identification signs. (LN
DCT- CERCL 1939, RTS, 8).
CERCL continued the 1931 signs for parking and for
first-aid stations (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 9). The
Committee considered a possible supplemental parking
sign for specific times and places of parking. This sign
displayed a blue ground with white letters. The beginnings
of "Advance Direction" signs can also be traced to
CERCL's inclusion of the existence of "Diagrammatic"
signs. The diagrammatic signs portrays a diagram showing
the lay-out of roads and places in advance. The Committee
also considered priority road signs which had found use in
several nations. CERCL decided against the inclusion of
this sign. The sign would gain official recognition in the
UN 1949 Protocol. (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 9).
The problem of sign visibility also fell under the
purview of CERCL (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 9-10).
The Committee noted that the "Draft Convention" included
recommendations for reflectors for signs at level-crossings.
CERCL did not issue a general and official recommen-
dations for that function but they did recommend sign
reflectors for halt signs and for signs denoting a road closed
to all vehicles. A suggestion was made for a sign denoting
tramway, trolley-bus, and motor-bus stops. That question
was set aside until the projected September 1939 session of
CERCL. (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 9-10).
The Committee's closing remarks noted the need for
an additional session (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, RTS, 10).
The projected session was needed for the completing the
33
"Draft Convention Concerning Motor Vehicles and Cycles"
and settlement of the questions arising from Article 1 and
11-17 of the 1926 Convention relative to Motor Traffic."
The session was also needed for an examination of
proposed articles to replace those of 1931 (the present
committee had examined only the annex of the 1931
Convention, though that was of primary importance for
traffic control devices), and for a reworking of the
Convention Relative to Road Traffic of 1926.
The "Draft Regulations" of March 27, 1939
(CCT/CDR/5 (1)), Part III, "Road Signs" necessitates a
brief review of the sign classification. (LN DCT-CERCL
1939, DR, 3). The "Draft Regulations" begins with a
classification of signs including necessary data on shapes of
signs and the appropriate circles, squares, rectangles, and
triangles imprinted on the signs. Each of the three groups
(Danger, Prohibitory and Mandatory, Caution/ Indication
signs) is considered separately. (LN DCT-CERCL 1939,
DR, 3).
Danger signs are divided into triangles with point up,
and those with point-down (LN DCT-CERCL 1939, DR, 9-
13). There are six signs for specific dangers, and two of
these have variant forms. There is a general-type danger
sign, which also has two forms. A complex color code is
provided for these signs. The 1938-1939 efforts failed to
assign an over-riding term for two of the categories. The
second category is comprised of two units each of which
forms half of the title: Prohibitory or Mandatory. The third
category encompasses "III A (Caution signs)" and "B"
(presumably III B) Indications signs. Text materials of the
"Draft Regulations" are satisfactorily addressed in the
discussion of the Third Session.
34
1B2 United Nations Protocol 1949
Considerable attention is given to the Protocol
throughout this monograph. However, it is also necessary
to consider the 1949 UN in itself. The Protocol has
importance since it provides both an extension and
expansion of earlier attempts at international traffic signs
systems; it underlies many current systems since it
represents one of the two primary "currents" (with a third
strain to some degree) in global sign language; and, hence,
it will not soon lose its importance.
The 1949 UN Protocol might have provided the basis
for a truly international system of signs, but that did not
happen. Instead, the 1949 Conference on Road Traffic led
to a concretizing of divergent approaches in signs that
already existed. This is especially true for danger warning
signs. In 1949 most of the developed road systems were
either in Europe or in North America. European states
consitituted a substantial portion of all independent nations
at that time; and, not surprizingly, the European position
generated a reinforcement of a system acceptable to
European, but less so to many other nations. The Protocol
was in the vein of 1909-1926- 1931-[1938-1939]
agreements; those earlier agreements were very much
European in foundation and outlook. The Protocol,
however, failed to gain sufficient signatures to achieve
ratification; however, heavy usage of its provisions was to
occur. (UN 1952 GERSS, 7).
The end result of the 1949 Conference was a
bifurcated statement: a vague and general outline of good
intentions (in the Conference document) sufficiently bland
and vague to be agreeable to all, and a very specific
European-based Protocol acceptable to only a portion of the
35
participants (UN 1952 GERSS, 2-3). The 1949 Conference
authorized a further study by experts in order to achieve the
yet elusive goal of a more global system of signs. The
study, that of GERSS, was held though no global system
was to be forthcoming. (UN 1952 GERSS, 2-3).
The 1949 Conference divided signs into recognizable
categories which continue to undergird current sign
practices: "Signs giving definite instructions," danger
warning signs, and informative signs (UN 1949 Protocol,
79-80). Regulatory signs is an alternative for the first
named category. That first group is again divided into three
smaller groups: indication, "advance direction signs and
direction signs," and "place and route identification signs"
(UN 1949 Protocol, 80). Each category of sign displayed a
specific shape though the categories lacked a distinctive
color. This is in contrast to the American system which was
both. (UN 1949 Protocol,  80; US 1971 MUTCD, 14-15).
This was to be a point of controversy since the dual method
of sign differentiation was lacking in UN 1949 (Shoaf
1968, 1). All warning signs and the prohibitory segment of
"signs giving definite instructions" (a term continued by
GERSS and UN) share the same border, ground, and
symbol colors (UN 1949 Protocol, 82, 91). The 1952 Draft
Convention eliminated that practice, but the 1968
Convention reinstated it for those nations opting for
Protocol-style signs  (UN 1952, GERSS, 39, 54; 
1971, 61).
Norms for danger signs included sign sizes (standard,
38"/.70m per side minimum; reduced size,  25"/.  per
side) as well as placement of signs, and standards for the
heights of signs (UN Protocol, 82, 89-90). A list of sign
types is given in the first Appendix of this study. The
distinctive shape for danger signs is that of the triangle with
36
a single upturned point. In most instances the symbol is
inscribed on the sign without employing supplementary
plates. Though the Other Dangers sign did make use of
such plates. An appropriate symbol can be embossed on the
plate; the rectangular sign is then affixed beneath the
triangular-shaped sign. This double-sign approach was the
foundation of the CASATC system and probably finds it
source in British practice. The added plate is also found
with the signs known as "hollow red triangle" signs, which
are employed "where atmospheric conditions do not permit
the use of the full sign." A variant of the standard point-
upwards triangular is the "Priority road" sign, which has
the single point in the reverse position. A plate can be
added indicating the distance to the road in question. (UN
Protocol, 82, 89-90).
"Signs giving definite instructions" are those emitting
messages of a prohibitive or an obligatory nature (UN 1949
Protocol, 90-91). Most of these signs conform to standard
or reduced sizes, though in some instances a smaller model
can be installed. Protocol included locational and height
requirements as well. The prohibitive part of these signs
exhibit a red border and ground white or light yellow in
color that encompasses a symbol that is black or at least in
a dark color. Exceptions to this pattern include the "no
entry for all vehicles" sign (an all red sign with a white, or
light color, and a horizontal bar), and the "turning
prohibited" signs (which contain a diagonal red bar for the
prohibited turn). The "Stop" sign consists of a red triangle
with red border and "Stop" inscribed in the national
language; this last feature is optional (UN 1949 Protocol,
96-97). The restricted stopping or waiting sign consists of a
red border, blue center, and red diagonal bar. An
accompanying plate can detail the specific meaning of a
given sign of that type. An alternative version indicates
37
when waiting and stopping prohibitions refer to one side of
traffic only. (UN 1949 Protocol, 96-97).
Mandatory signs exhibit a blue ground and a white
symbol. The various signs follow this format closely and as
a result there is little variation nor a need for expanded
comments (UN 1949 Protocol, 92).
The first category of informative signs are those
termed "indication signs" (UN 1949 Protocol, 100-101).
Protocol states that these signs are to be of rectangular
shape (though some are of a square shape). The color red is
not to dominate in this group. This category begins with
parking signs. These signs are square and of two standard
sizes. The sign is blue with a white graphic or word symbol
in the national language. The hospital sign can be described
in nearly identical terms.
Other signs include the auxiliary signs, which are
rectangular in shape (with the vertical as the longer
dimension) and the symbol inscribed in black or blue on a
white center within a blue border (UN 1949 Protocol, 101-
104). "Priority Road" signs and "End of Priority" signs are
diamond-shaped signs (or in Protocol parlance, "square
with one point downwards"). The signs have a black rim,
white border and yellow center; the second sign adds a
transverse bar in black. A plate can be added to this same
sign to indicate the "approach to the end of a priority read."
Advance direction and direction signs are rectangular in
shape and "have either a light ground with dark lettering or
a dark ground with light lettering." (UN 1949 Protocol,
101-104).
Concluding signs of this category include direction
signs which are "rectangular with the longer side horizontal
38
and ... terminate in the form of an arrow-head" (UN 1949
Protocol, 104- 109). "Place and route identification signs"
complete the category of information signs which are
similar in shape and color format to previously described
forms. "Special identification of route" signs, however, are
much smaller and may either exist independently, or they
may be affixed to mileposts or other signs. Route markers
probably qualifies as an alternate term. "Supplementary
provisions" for level-crossings are also detailed in the
Protocol. (UN 1949 Protocol, 104-109).
The first coverage of traffic signals in an European-
influenced document is found in Protocol (UN 1949
Protocol, 107-109). The documents provide for a three-
color system of red, green, and amber, and a two-color
system of red, green, and amber, and a two-color system of
red and green. In the second case a combination red and
green signal can serve the purpose normally fulfilled by an
amber signal. Flashing amber is permitted in the Protocol,
but no mention of flashing red is to be found except for
level (railway) crossings. (UN 1949 Protocol, 107-109).
The first mention of pavement markings in an
European based safety publications is also found in
Protocol (UN 1949  Protocol, 111-112) though the
provisions are not extensive. This is understandable since
the publication was the pioneer work for such regulations.
Lane markings (presumably center-lines) are applied where
necessary. Protocol included guidelines on their use. Edge
reflectors are included for necessary situations. Reflectors
are to be red in color or orange for the "direction of traffic"
while white is employed for the opposite side. White or
amber reflectors mark various kinds of obstructions in the
actual roadway.
39
IC Traffic Signs Developments in Africa/Middle East/
Asia/Pacific/Americas: 1925-1950
ICI Early Africa/Middle East/Asia/Pacific/Americas
a) The Americas
This segment takes up a vast area encompassing much
of the globe. Work undertaken on traffic control devices
was of limited scope. And in Africa, Asia, and the Pacific
TCD developments were heavily influenced by factors out-
side the regions. Only in the Americas did substantial inde-
pendent work take place; and most of that in theUS. Only
in Africa did an international conference take place and that
at the tag end of this quarter-century. That con-ference
requires a separate section because of its complexity.
Traffic control devices development in the Americas
has undergone several phases: 1) The development of
traffic signs in the US. This development has had world-
wide significance epecially in light of the octagonal stop
sign and of the diamond-shaped warning sign. 2) The role
of the various editions of the Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) beginning in 1935. 3) The
meetings and resolutions of the Pan American Highway
Congresses, and of the American Travel Congress. Central
American sign development, the Inter-American Manual of
Traffic Control Devices, and the polyglot Canadian system
and the impact of the "American System" on UN 1952
GERSS formulations are extensions of these developments
that spill over into the modern era.
Much of the work underlying the US sign system,
including sign concepts that had international influence
beyond the US, can be traced to the early 1920s. It is
40
possible -- without overly simplifying events -- to locate
the cause of many traffic control devices foundations to a
few specific individuals and the maintenance/public works
departments in a few US states. The first significant
classification of signs is that of the Mississippi Valley
Association of State Highway Departments (MVASHD) in
their 1923 meeting (Sessions 1970, 84). Officials of three
midwestern states had created the basis of that first classifi-
cation by their proposals of a system of sign shapes, colors,
and messages to the MVASHD (Sessions 1970, 82).
This system proposed round signs for railway
crossings, octagonal signs for stop, diamond-shaped signs
("square with diagonal vertical") for "slow warnings,"
rectangular for "directional regulatory information," and
route markers of a design at variance with previous notions.
(Sessions 1970, 84).
The ground (background) of these signs was to be
white, and the letters and graphic symbols were to be black
(Sessions 1970, 84). The recommendations were then
passed onto the American Association of Highway
Officials (AASHO). The State of Minnesota enacted the
first Manual of Markers and Signs  in 1923 (Sessions 1970,
84). This document determined the use of black symbols,
or letters, black rims, and a ground of lemon yellow. The
recommendations were presented by AASHO to the US.
Secretary of Agriculture (October 30, 1925) and approved
on November 18 of that year (Sessions 1970, 92). AASHO
approved the report on the same day at their annual meeting
at Detroit. Before the first day of February in 1926, forty-
one states had approved the report. AASHO published the
Manual and Specificiations for the Manufacture, Display,
and Erection of U.S. Standard Road Markers and Signs  in
January of 1927 (Sessions 1970, 92).
41
The Manual contained these principal provisions: 1)
diamond-shaped signs projected a message "requiring slow
speed and caution... ." 2) Square-shaped signs indicated
that caution was required because of "contiguous or
adjacent conditions which are also intermittent ... ." 3) All
signs that give a message of a "precautionary nature" have
a yellow ground and black symbols. (Sessions 1970, 92).
This system described signage for rural areas but it did
not address urban needs as such. The first manual for urban
requirements was promulgated in 1930 by the American
Engineering Council for the National Conference on Streets
and Highway Safety, and entitled, Manual on Street  Traffic
Signs, Signals, and Markings (Sessions, 1970, 118). Its
basic principles and norms were very much akin to those of
the AASHO publication. The need for a single volume on
signs, markings, and signals was very early realized, and
NCSHS and ASSHO formed a Joint Committee in 1931.
The first of many editions of the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices was published in November of
1935. This first amalgamated edition reflected the now
long established norms on shapes, colors, and graphic and
word symbols. The Manual  and its successors were to have
great significance and its value would steadily increase.
The 1948 edition (2nd ed) offer a variety of changes
including great usage of graphic symbols (though on a
limited scale in comparison with present-day usage) and
increased employment of pavement markings and advances
in traffic signals (US MUTCD, 1-2).
Uniformity in signs was a concern elsewhere in the
Western Hemisphere for more than 40 years. The desired
uniformity did not materialize until 1967 (PAHC 1967,
IAMM). Early concern was expressed through a study of
42
the issues and a focuss on recommendations. The problem
first received attention at the inaugural meeting of the Pan-
American Road Congress in 1925 (Sessions 1970, 129-
130). A resolution was passed calling for a study and
adoption of a uniform system of signs and signals. The 2nd
Pan- American Road Congress in 1929 noted that the
"European system" failed to meet American needs and that
a study of signs was needed. They further noted the need
for "a project for a uniform international code" and "that
such signs be prepared for adoption by the member nations
of the Pan American Union ... ." At the Pan-American
Congress in 1930 a "Convention on the Regulation of
Automotive Traffic" was approved. Article XE of this
document called for "danger, restriction and direction signs
(to) be made uniform as between the several states."
(Sessions 1970, 129-130).
The 3rd American Travel Congress (San Carlos de
Bariloche, Argentina) in 1949 proposed a unified American
signs system with the US MUTCD as the foundation of it
(Sessions 1970, 130). Progress toward a much desired
uniform system was slow, but it can be noted that a great
system of highways and a large number of motor vehicles
were absent in considerable parts of the region until
relatively recent times.
b) Africa/Middle East/Asia/Pacific
Development of traffic control devices in the vast
area stretching from the Cape of Good Hope to the Suez
Canal and on to the Pacific was much more limited than
that of Europe and North America before the deliberations
and document of UN GERSS 1952. And much of that
limited development was largely dictated by organizations
and nations outside of Africa, Asian, and the Pacific
43
regions. Nonetheless, some degree of activity was present.
For the most part, Africa followed the "European
system" after the 1926 agreement in Paris (UN 1952
GERSS, 12). But the 1931 Convention results held sway
only in North Africa; variants of that agreement came into
use in sub-Saharan Africa. Efforts at unification of signs
were attempted in Africa, and a system of signs was
proposed for Southern Africa before World War II, but that
conflict precluded very much use of new ideas in traffic
signs. In 1950 the Johannesburg conference was held which
great altered sign patterns in sub-Saharan Africa (UN
GERSS 1952, 12).
Asia and the Pacific present a very mixed pattern
during this period. Some nations (Iran and Thailand)
closely followed the 1931 system (UN 1952 GERSS, 13-
14). While other nations employed the hollow triangle in
red above a rectangular plate displaying appropriate symbol
bearing the symbols of the Old British System (OBS).
These nations of India (Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri
Lanka), Malaya, Australia, and New Zealand. These latter
nations were either possessions, or independent nations,
affiliated with Britain. And all, to some extent, followed
OBS noted for its two-part sign system. (UN 1952 GERSS,
13-14).
The Middle East nations also employed the European
system though road signs were limited in much of that
region; at least at the time of the GERSS survey of traffic
signs. Egypt and some other nations added supplement
plates with word inscriptions to signs with graphic symbols
(see previous remarks on OBS and on Asia and the Pacific;
UN 1952 GERSS, 15). Turkey adopted the American
system would later and alledgely take up the new approach
44
of GERSS.
Japan is an especially important nation in
transportation and communications since the latter
nineteenth century. Japan provides an example of a more
advanced and developed level of traffic control
development in contrast to what is found much of the Asian
continent in the first half of the century. Japan, in its
development of traffic control devices is more akin to
European and North American nations. Japan's approach to
traffic signals and signs mirrors its approach to industrial
development: a selective and judicious borrowing of ideas
and practices with a subsequent altering through the
crucible of Japanese experience, culture, and of course,
indigenous development. (PICHSS 1972, 28).
Japan first established a substantial system of traffic
signs in 1922 (PICHSS 1972, 28). The Japanese sign
ordinance of that time made considerable usage of what has
been termed the OBS. Most of the signs were either
warning, or guide signs (direction and destination); they
included the dual-sign approach of graphic symbol and
word message (in Japanese). While the OBS was widely
employed in the United Kingdom (and its possessions and
affiliations), Japan offers a first usage of OBS outside the
British orbit. The Japanese sign system, as is common in
sign systems in the first quarter or first third of the century,
was largely restricted to warning) signs and some guidance
signs (PICHSS 1972, 28).
In 1942 Japan promulgated a new ordinance for signs
(PICHSS 1972, 28). This was an expanded system that
added "prohibitory, regulatory and instruction signs" to
those already existing. During this process of revision the
German sign mode became prominent in Japanese thought.
45
It is also obvious that Germany's system was influenced by
various European efforts at sign techniques and appli-
cations. This can be seen in the choice of color meanings
and basic symbols adapted by Japan which resembled those
of Protocol 1949. These also were based on European ideas
(PICHSS 1972, 28-29).
Japan's alertness to transportation needs and to new
thinking in signs is evident in the revision of the ordinance
in 1950. This revision was substantial and in accordance
with UN 1949 Protocol (PICHSS 1972, 28-29). However,
not all of the UN provisions were adopted. US influence
was also to be seen in the revision. Japan adopted a five-
part division of signs: guide, warning, and prohibitory,
instruction and indication (the last three constituting what is
normally seen as regulatory signs). Regulatory signs
followed UN symbols in most instances. Graphic symbols
were combined with word messages (both English and
Japanese). The American system served as a pattern for
warning signs. Guide signs were "of an original style."
However, various guide signs were more complex and
generally poorer than those of 1942 revision. The 1950
alterations focussed on the maximum use of graphic
sysmbols and word messages with both English and
Japanese words (as an interim measure), American system
style warning signs, and usage of color (red for prohibitory,
green for instruction and indications signs). (PICHSS 1972,
28-29).
1 C2 More Recent Africa: CASATC
Among the more curious international agreement on
traffic control devices is that of the Central and Southern
Africa Transport Conference held at Johannesburg in 1950.
The Conference encompassed all of southern Africa, much
46
of Central Africa, and some north-central areas (CASATC
1950, 30). Portions of what are not infrequently termed
East Africa and West Africa (though not the Guinea Coast
or West-Central Africa were subsumed under the term
"Central Africa." (CASATC 1950, 30).
The Conference is curious for several reasons: only
one of the governmental units participating in the
Conference was an African-based independent nation-- that
of the Union of South Africa. And that government was
based on a political franchise that excluded over 80% of the
population (Statesmen' Yearbook  1952, 247). The
participants included representative of the governments of
Belgium, France, Portugal, Southern Rhodesia, the Union
of South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Southern
Rhodesia was not independent but it did possess a
legislative assembly.
The territorities represented were Angola, Belgium
Congo (Zaire), Ruandi Urundi (Burundi, Rwanda), French
Equatorial Africa (Gabon, Congo, Central African
Republic, Chad), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Nyasaland
Protectorate (Malawi), East African High Commission
(Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika [later Tanzania with addition
of Zanzibar]), High Commission for Basutoland (Lesotho,
Swasiland), Bechuanaland Protectorate (Botswana)
(CASATC 1950, 30). The Cameroons (French and British),
and Spanish Guinea (Equatorial Guinea) though adjoining
the region of the conference were not members. The US
and the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development joined the Conference as observers.
(CASATC 1950, 30).
The resulting system of road signs, signals, and
markings is also curious. The CASATC system of signs
47
Prohibitory and mandatory signs form a single group.
This is contrary to the 1949 Protocol. This means that the
predominantly red sign for prohibitory and predominantly
blue sign for mandatory as distinguishing marks are absent
from CASATC. Many of these signs are also of an com-
posite nature for CASATC. They display a red-bordered
circle combined with a yellow ground. The round portion
displays a white center without other symbols. The plates
are generally rectangular in shape with the longer
dimension horizonatal, and the symbols are black. The stop
sign has one of three possible designs: a) The first is a
rectangular plate with a markedly elongated vertical
appearance and with a surmounting top circle of small size
and in red; the word STOP is inscribed on the rectangular
plate. b) The second consists of the standard red- bordered
circle with a rectangular yellow plate with the longer
dimension horizontal; again, the word STOP is inscribed on
the sign. c) The third version is found at level crossings. It
is composed of a red circle and a large plate in yellow with
the word STOP. This sign plate is distinctive in that the
corners of the plate are "cropped off' creating an eight-
sided sign though four of the "sides are diminutive.
"Parking" and "No Stopping" signs have the
respective messages inscribed on the signs (CASATC
1950, Appendix III,Schedule 2). The 1949 Protocol of the
UN lacks a "Prohibition of Parking" sign. However,
prohibition of parking in the Protocol was covered by the
"Waiting Prohibited" sign (UN 1949 Protocol, 99). By
contrast, the 1931 agreement did have such a parking
prohibited sign (LN 1931 CCURS, 7). The CASATC signs
have a red rim, yellow ground, and a red transverse bar.
This category of sign includes the general "No Parking"
sign, which consists of a transverse bar, and the letter "P";
and the selective "No Parking" sign, which adds the hours
4S
incorporated the Protocol sign shapes and symbols, but in
conjunction with the OBS style of danger warning signs
(CASATC 1950, Appendix III; UK MT broadside). This
meant that each sign unit contained a Protocol triangular-
shaped sign (red border, white ground) accompanied by the
OBS danger warning colors of yellow and black, though on
a rectangular-shaped sign (CASATC 1950, Appendix III,
Schedule 1, and 83). The foundations of the two-part sign
concepts are not given in the documentation of CASATC,
though it appears they stem from the OBS sign format
approach (CASATC 1950, Appendix III; UK MT
broadside). In short, CASATC constructed a unique
arrangement out of familiar components.
This system has proven to be more than a local
curiosity since it attracted the attention of nearly-
simultaneous deliberations of the "Group of Experts on
Road Signs and Signals" (GERSS; and, in fact, it
constitutes a third approach to signs in the 1952 UN Draft
Convention documents (UN 1952 GERSS, 17). GERSS
speaks of two strains of TCDs though they include a third
version. Krampen goes further and speaks of three strains;
the third being that of CASATC which he denotes as the
African (Krampen 1983, 102).
CASATC danger signs display a triangle with a broad
red border with a white triangular center or ground
(CASATC 1950, Appendix III, Schedule 1). No symbols
are inscribed in the triangle. The plate below the triangle is
yellow with black graphic symbols. The plates are the same
height in all cases, though the width may vary in some
instances. Some plates are of a square shape while others
are rectangular in shape; the horizontal dimension is the
shorter dimension. (CASATC 1950, App. III, Sch. 1).
49
of no parking and also a red transverse bar. The "One-way"
and "Cycle Track" sign are akin to the UN mode except for
a red ground in place of the blue ground (UN 1949
Protocol, 98-100; also CASATC reference). The "No
Stopping" sign is very close to the "No Parking" sign in
design. The CASATC types lack the blue center found in
the Protocol. In a reversal of roles, the UN provides a
separate plate for selective "No Stopping" zones.
CASATC informative signs provide an unusual
appearance: they present a combination of what would be
expected in informative signs and also what would wit be
expected (CASATC 1950, Appendix III, Schedule 1). What
would be expected are the categories of "Advance Direc-
tion and Direction" signs, as well as that of the category of
"Place and Route Identification" signs. "Indication" signs
are also included, though that heading is absent. Instead,
the signs are included under the general "Information"
signs heading. (CASATC 1950, App. III, Sch. 1).
What would not be expected are many signs that
would normally be classified as danger warning signs but
which are included, along with the previously described
category, and all under the "Informative" signs heading
(CASATC 1950, Appendix III, Schedule 1). CASATC has
removed the triangular shaped portion with red border and
white ground, but then included the rectangular portion (for
example, a curve sign) without the designation "danger-
ous." The end result is a curious amalgamation of what
non-African observers would term "Information" signs, and
"Warning" signs, though missing a key component from
the viewpoint of CASATC. (CASATC 1950, App. III,Sch.
1).
A review of other CASATC "Information" signs
50
shows a system of signs akin to UN 1949 in many
instances. The CASATC "Parking" sign is blue in color, as
in the UN model, but the "P" of the sign is smaller and the
qualifying information is inscribed on the sign rather than
on a separate plate; this is the reverse of the UN practice
(CASATC 1950, Appendix III, Schedule 1). This is the
only CASATC sign that has a blue ground. The "Hospital"
sign has a yellow ground with a red cross within a black
circle and accompanied by an "H" in black. The "Major
Road Ahead" sign (known as a "Priority" sign in the
Protocol, and as the "Yield" sign, in the US) is found
among informative signs and not with the danger warning
signs (also UN 1969 CORSS, 112; US 1961 MUTCD, 29).
Nonetheless, the sign is very similar to the UN version.
CASATC "Advance Direction," sub-divisions of
informative signs, and "Direction" signs are much akin to
UN types (CASATC 1950, Appendix III, Schedule 1,).
CASATC requires black ground and white graphic and
word symbols for these signs. The "Place and Route
Identification" signs are confusing in that a distinctly
direction sign (and one so labelled) is included under the
"Place and Route Indentification" heading. Also included
are place names, descriptive signs, and route markers. All
of these signs continue the white on black motif. The route
markers are rectangular in shape (the vertical dimension is
the longer dimension). A category of "Temporary Road
Signs" follows the CASATC "Prohibitive and Mandatory"
signs in color and shape format. These include a "Road
Closed" and "Detour Ahead" (with arrow) signs. "Stop and
Go" signs, in the temporary form, are circular with a red
ground and the inscription "STOP"; and circular with a
green ground and word inscription "GO" in yellow.
51
01
N
ID Traffic Signals and Traffic Markings to 1950
1D1 Introduction
Many older TCD systems lacked any mention of
Traffic Signals or Traffic Markings. And those systems and
documents that included these aids did so only briefly.
Admittedly a regional or global system of traffic aids will
address some topics less fully than a manual or handbook
of aids for a nation or region. And early stages of new aids
will receive scattered coverage but no systematic coverage
let alone inclusion in handbooks and conventions. The end
result is sparse coverage of signals and markings for
whatever reason. Older TCD systems therefore gave most
or all of their attention to Traffic Signs. This resulted in
ample coverage of signs by international agreement and by
regional efforts but little coverage for Traffic Signals and
Traffic Markings.
This sub-chapter will therefore take up Traffic Signals
and Traffic Markings for all parts of the world in a single
limited unit in contrast to system and regional unts for
Traffic Signs. The review begins with the early 20th
century and continues to and concludes with the CASATC
system in 1950. 1D2 reviews Traffic Signals and 1D3 takes
up Traffic Markings. Traffic Signals in a formative sense is
often outside of formal systems and coverage of various
topics, systems, regions is often not extensive. Further
information can be found in the the TCD history (Part J) in
this Series. The TCD Database (Part Iii) provides
information on types and terms of various aids with a
historical dimension.
1D2 Traffic Signals
53
Traffic signals date back to 1968 in London. But
that was a solitary installation (Webster 1966, 2). Traffic
signals in experimental or small scale use is a different
matter from general usage. And traffic signals in general
use in national or regional use may differ from a global
agreement. Perhaps the earliest inclusion of signals in a
major agreement is that of the US in 1930. In that year a
Manual on Street Traffic Signs, Signals, and Markings was
published by the American Engineering Council. It
included a basic color code of red?stop, green=proceed,
yellow?caution.. A three-color signal was recommended
but two-color (red and green) was permitted. The exporting
of US practice into the hemisphere justifies inclusion of
this national material here.(Hawkins 7-92, 26).
The first of many editions of MUTCD (Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices) was promulgated in
1935. This document was a merger of older urban and rural
documents. The three-color signal became standard and all
signals were to be eight inches in diameter. Arrows in
green became official. And pedestrian signals displayed
walk/wait messages. A 1939 revision of the first edition
added rectangular shaped pedestrian signals. The 1948
edition of MUTCD offered two forms of pedestrian signals:
circular with walk/wait and rectangular with walk/don't
walk. Lane control signals for reversible lanes were
introduced. (Hawkins 8-92, 20-21; 11-92, 17-18). By the
1930s and probably in the 1920s, the basic pattern of color
and meaning was established. And those factors carry over
into all codes for signals.
Evans notes that signals became "general use" aids in
Germany in 1926 and two years later in the United
Kingdom (Evans 1950, xii). Tripp, however, notes the a
54
system of signals was employed in Paris by 1922. That
system employed single-head signals in red. When on the
signal projected a message of stop; when off the passive
message of proceed was given (Tripp 1950, 258). Webster
refers to traffic signals in use in London in 1925 and 1926
but these may not have been of general use (Webster 1966,
2-3).
The first coverage of traffic signals in an European-
influenced document is found in the Protocol (UN 1949
Protocol, 107-109). The documents provide for a three-
color system of red, green, and amber. And a two-color
system of red and green. In the second case a combination
of red and green signal can serve the purpose normally
fulfilled by an amber signal. Flashing amber is permitted in
the Protocol, but no mention of flashing red is to be found
except for railway or level crossings. (UN 1949 Protocol,
107-109).
A somewhat extensive coverage of traffic signals is
given in CASATC. Signals are here considered under the
unusual heading of "Traffic Light Signs". Despite the
inclusion of the word "sign" only standard lighted signals
are included in the CASATC treatment (CASATC 1950,
Appendix III, Schedule 1). Standard signals are termed
"Robots" in the CASATC system. These exhibit the lights
in the normal vertical arrangement with red at top, yellow
in the middle, and green at the bottom. Flashing red lights,
known as "Flash Lights," are flashing lights mounted on a
red- boarded triangular-shaped sign; and these "Flash
lights" indicate danger. A similar signal, but affixed to a
circular sign (in red) accompanied by a rectangular yellow
plate, indicates "Prohibitive with flashlight." A "bollard"
with message "Keep Right") is internally lighted.
(CASATC 1950, Appendix III, Schedule 1).
55
1D3 Traffic Markings
This coverage influenced substantially by  T-M
History (Part J in this Series). Pavement Markings has be-
come a significant part of TCDs in the 20th century. There
are only limited references to such aids in the 19th and
early 20th centuries. Admittedly such aids were a minor aid
in that time. Lay and Sessions note the use of various kinds
of surface markings from the 1880s to near 1920. A PIARC
Congress in 1913 made some reference to Traffic
Markings. (Lay 1992, 191; Sessions 1970, 101-103).
Hawkins notes the increased references to traffic
markings in various editions of US MUTCD. The 1935
edition included centerlines for hazardous locations though
not for general usage. Traffic lanes, pavement edges,
crosswalk boundaries were also included. Surface markings
colors were dictated by what gave the greatest contrast with
the background. Colors included white, yellow, black.
(Hawkins 8-92, 18-19). A 1939 revision of the 1935
MUTCD added no-passing markings. (Hawkins 8-92, 20),
A pre-MUTCD publication, Manual on Urban Traffic
Control Devices was published in 1930 by the American
Engineering Council. (Hawkins 7-92, 26).
In 1948 white became standard color other than
double centerlines and no passing lines. Those uses
employed yellow (yellow was recommended with white as
an alternative). The use of pavement edge lines, a common
contemporary practice, was disallowed in 1948 though
approved in 1935. It was thought that confusion of such
lines with centerlines or lane lines might occur. (Hawkins
11-92, 17).
The first mention of pay ment markings in an
56
European-based publication is also found in Protocol (UN
1949 Protocol, 111-112, TISRP) though the provisions are
not extensive. This is understandable since that publication
was the pioneer work for such regulations. Lane markings
(presumably center-lines) are applied where necessary.
Protocol included guidelines on their use. Edge reflectors
are included for necessary situations. Reflectors are to be
red in color or orange for the "direction of traffic" while
white is employed for the opposite side. White or amber
reflectors mark various kinds of obstructions in the actual
roadway.
Road Markers (CASATC 1950, Appendix III,
Schedule 1) are comprised of "Pedestrian Crossing-
markings" presumably for road edge markings. The latter is
composed of a white ground and either small red circular
reflectors or red diagonal stripes. Level-crossing norms
follow the UN pattern, though a variant form of the level-
crossing sign listed as a "Warning Cross" (the rectangular
version is labelled as a "Level-crossing Stop Sign") has a
black and yellow-striped cross as opposed to the red and
white motif of the regular type.
While OBS focussed primarily on signs they also gave
some attention to traffic markings. The growing use of
carriageway (or pavement) markings was independent of
signs yet the two developments were often parallel to a
considerable degree. (UK HADTS Addendum, 4-5,
TISRP). Carriageway markings, seemingly, began in
Britian during the early Victorian period though they did
not become relatively commonplace until after World War
I. And it was not until 1926 that an official circular (MOT
circular #238) published guidelines on the usage of white
lines. The "1933 Committee" then incorporated Circular
#238 into its own work. The report of the "1933
57
Committee" noted three primary purposes for white lines:
as stop lines, curve markings, and junction and corner
markings. The committee also recognized white lines for
marking "street refuges" as well as other obstacles in
roadways. Though the committee showed awareness of
centerline markings in the US, it did not address the matter.
The range of pavement markings was expanded by the
1944 Committee; these new usages included lane markings.
Reflective "buttons," commonly referred to as "Cats-eyes"
in England, were first installed in 1935 and became very
common on road and were of especial value in times of
restricted visibility.
58
CHAPTER TWO
CLASSIFICATION WITH EXPLANATORY NOTES
2A The Classification Revisited
2A1 Introduction to Chapter 2
Originally this chapter (in the first edition) was
intended to focus exclusively on a simple classification of
international traffic control devices accompanied by the
necessary explanatory notes. However, it became evident
that a rethinking of the basis of the classification system, as
found in the original work (Parts A, B, C/D 1st [and
unitary] edition, 1981) would be required in order to obtain
a more precise and meaningful classification of markings.
The first segment of this chapter will therefore examine the
matter of the classification system itself accompanied by
necessary classifications and revisions of the original
system.
The revisions, or "revisits" will pertain to all forms of
Transportation-Markings and not merely traffic control
devices in this specific study. This coverage will consider
both the extensive classification of types of markings and
the more limited classification of the types of mesages.
The first edition of Part E contained a single classi-
fication with both main and sub-forms together. The idea of
variant classifications first arose with the railway study in
1991. A variant classification for tcd was fashioned for the
general classification study (1st ed, 1994). This edition
contains both main and variant classifications along with
necessary explanatory notes for both.
59
Chapter 2A contains only limited revisions from the
first edition. However, Chapter 2B classification materials
and accompanying notes have undergone major changes and,
in some instances, drastic changes.
2A2 The Revisting of the Classification
a) The 4th Digit Problem:
Aids Affected by it/Aids not Affected by it
It became obvious even in the very early stages of the
1st ed of this work that either changes in the classification
system of types of markings were necessary or, at the very
least, improved explanation of the existing system were
needed. The most serious problem centered on the meaning
of the fourth-digit of the classification number. The fourth-
digit number appears to represent a single, unitary trans-
portation-marking but that suggests more precision than
was always the case. While the fourth-digit was not
intended to represent a category of markings in actual
practice it often did just that.
That problem centered on markings capable of
producing more than one message as well as those not  so
capable. Markings with multi-message capabilities include
fewer types since those types can display a variety of
messages from each unit. Therefore they do not constitute
a wide range of independent, though closely-related, aids.
But markings with a capability of a single, narrow-focussed
message do constitute a vast range of types. Regular traffic
signals are an example of a single marking capable of pro-
ducing several different messages. By contrast, traffic signs
can produce, in most instances, a single message and as a
60
result they represent a great number of separate markings
resulting in a broad series of closely-related aids. Further
explanation of the basis of signals and signs and their
relation to the classification is needed.
A lighted traffic signal consists (this is also true of
marine lights, aero lights as well as many others) of a
housing, a power source, a message-producing mechanism
and a means of projecting the messages that have been
produced. A traffic signal can present to the viewer one of
several states (and here the resemblances to marine, aero
lights are less): an inactive one if the signal is not function-
ing; an active one if functioning. The active state can
provide one of several messages: proceed, caution, stop. It
is not difficult to say, "here is the signal mechanism," and
"over there are the light waves which make up the physical
message." In other words, one can break down the com-
ponents of a functioning traffic signal. The signal and
message constitute an integrated whole but one in which the
components can be separated.
But if one then examines a traffic sign a problem
occurs in separating message from message-producing
function. The physical sign (concrete, metal sheeting or
wooden board, various kinds of fasteners), and the message
(symbols of varying sorts made up of painted, embossed,
or taped materials) constitute not only an integrated whole
but a single unit. One can hardly speak of the physical
dimensions of the signs without also speaking of the actual
message of that sign. This also means that the variety of
signs forms an innumerable mass that cannot be separated
into structure and message since the extreme closenes of
structure and message means that each type of sign
represents a separate aid. This contrasts with signals of
which only a limited number of types exists since the
61
messages produced can be distinguished from the message-
producing dimension. Signal types can be divided into
categories that give some information about the message but
the classification of signals is primarily one of tangible
types of physical markings not messages.
b) Classifying Principle: 4th-Digit May Represent
Categories Not Separate Aids
The classification at this level becomes one of
classifying categories rather than individual signs. It is
reasonable to say that each sign with its message is a single
and independent marking but then the classification -- if
pursued to a logical conclusion -- becomes bloated-with
hundreds and even thousands of signs. But if one views a
classification of markings as including physical markings
and not message emanations, then it is necessary to
eliminate words such as "warning signs" since "warning"
refers to the type of message and not to the type of
marking. And that may seem to be the correct response.
But choosing that course of action has the result of
including a vast number of types of signs under a single
reference which, in turn, seems to be an inadequate
response to the numbers and types of signs in use.
Both of the previously stated positions -- that of
classifying and listing individually every sign which varies
ever so slightly from other signs, and that of listing vast
quantities of signs as a single group -- are not acceptable
responses in the view of this compiler. However, the
apparent lack of some other response largely superficial and
stems from a misconception about the nature of Transpor-
tation-Markings. T-M forms -- and not just traffic signs --
incorporate factors, including message-producing factors,
62
which may not be intrinsic to the physical marking. Those
other forms of markings, whether trackside signals, marine
aids to navigation or traffic signals, are in reality, not pure 
isolates (see Appendix I, Glossary of Terms). The design
of markings reflect very much the geographical,
transportation infrastructure, and interactions between
signals and humans and/or transportation modes.
In short, there are few forms of signals that have not
incorporated, in some manner or other, an extraneous
influence. A signal arriving at its intended site in a sealed
packing crate has already been affected by outside
influences. For example, a trackside signal includes a form
of signal designed for a specific location (mainline track) and
it excludes other locations (sidings, railway yards, etc).
These signals include specified signal aspects and indi-
cations. In large part the outside physical and transpor-
tation world forms the "destiny" of that signal. A switch
signal also has precise functions and locations. Those
signals, frequently found in switching yards, exhibit a
narrow range of aspects and indications; in fact such a signal
may do no more than display a "stop" or "go" message.
All markings are therefore affected by the location, by
the requirements of traffic patterns, by the mode of trans-
portation, by the physical terrain. All markings contain a
message dimension, but markings do not contain that
dimension in the same way. Signs manifest the message
directly by displaying the message produced; other mark-
ings may incorporate it by the construction of the signal or
by the placement of the marking. One cannot create a pure
isolate marking impervious to the "outside world."
What does this mean for the classification?
63
I) It means that factors outside of the marking
themselves are not extraneous to the marking (though apart
from the precisely physical dimension) but are an integral
factor to be considered with the marking. These can and do
include message factors.
2) Since markings capable of a single, narrow message
can result in a mass of markings closely related and yet
remaining independent, it is very difficult to individually
classify them. The final digit of the classification must
represent categories, not individual marking in those cases.
3) It can be reasonably argued that such appellations
as "warning" in a general sense refer more to geography
than to a message. Only the specific designation (for
example, "warning sign -- sharp bend") can be considered a
message.
4) It is finally necessary to examine the brief
classifiction of types of messages from Part A so that it can
become more workable. This second classification can help
pinpoint those markings that needs be classified by
categories and not by individual members.
5) The principle of classification remains coherent and
consistent. Markings are, in the last analysis,  classified
according to the state that is irreducible (subject to
interpretation according to the classification of message
types).
2A3 Changes in Classification: Messages
Part A, Foundations, in  the original volume, provides a
classifitory schema but that early version contains a short-
coming which became only apparent with the first edition
of this work. That classification in its original state
comprises a four-fold division:
1) Changing message/multiple message (C3M).
2) Changing message/multiple message (CMSM).
64
3) Unchanging message/multiple message (U3M).
4) Unchanging message/multiple message (UMSM)
It then became apparent that the UMSM category not
only cuts a wide swath across a major portion of
Transportation-Markings but also brings together types of
aids that need to be further differentiated within the
UMSM category. UMSM includes not only road and other
signs but also a great many marine and aero lights whose
mechanisms bear resemblance to many road and rail signals.
Since marine and aero lighted markings exhibit a single
message they were assigned to the same category to which
traffic signs we assigned. UMSM includes disparate
mechanisms and devices that can project a variety of
messages (but not at the same time); it also includes those
aids unable to project anything other than a single message.
Placing objects together that share one characteristic but
clash on other points is a less than desirable "solution" even
in a very truncated classification.
The necessary change in the category can be
accomplished by the establishment of sub-categories for the
UMSM category. The components of UMSM exhibit one
of two message characteristics: either they produce one
message at a given time (though they can be programmed
for other messages), or they produce a single message, and
are incapable of producing any other message (unless the
marking is so altered that it becomes a new type of
marking). Marine lights are examples of the former situation
and thereby belong to sub-category I or "Programmable
Transportation-Markings." Traffic signs are examples of
sub-category II, "Unitary Markings."
Sub-category IT needs further differentiation into
variants. Some classes of signs or other markings have a
65
single form of message and admit of no variation. For
example, a stop sign has a single message. Such classes of
markings can be categorized as Variant "A". "B" variant is
an intermediate one that allows one of several predictable
versions. For example, turn signs come in right, left, and
"hairpin" turn forms as well as other configurations. The
basic sign can vary but only within prescribed limits. "C"
variant includes those markings about which few if any
predictions can be made. These can be labelled "Individual"
and would include, for example, information signs giving the
names of towns and the distance to them. This last group is
individualized to the extreme and only the most general
statements about the message content can be made.
Programmable markings, since they are very much
individualized, cannot be easily sub-divided except in broad
categories. For example, the US Coast Guard publishes
charts of the types of light messages (flashing, occulting,
isophase, etc.) but would require a light list to know the
exact character of each light.
2B Classification and Notes
2B 1 The Main Classification
41 Traffic Control Signals
411 Standard Signals
4110 Traffic Signals
4111 Pedestrian Signals
412 Special Signals
4120 Cyclist Signals
4121 Flashing Beacons
4122 Level (Railway) Crossing Signals
4123 Lane-Use Control Signals
4124 Movable Bridge Signals
66
4125 Emergency Signals
4126 Ramp-Control Signals
4127 Miscellaneous Signals
4128 Lighting Devices
42 Partially-Lighted TCDs
421 Lighting Devices
4210 Warning Lights
4211 Steady-Burning Electric Lamps
422 Signs [This pertains to listing of signs in
unlighted classification. When lighted such signs
are preceded by "4"]
43 Unlighted TCD Signs & Markings
431 Warning Signs
4310 Roadway Alignment Signs
4311 Roadway Conditions Signs
4312 Intersection Signs
4313 Intermittent Moving Hazards Signs
4314 Construction & Maintenance Signs
4315 Level/Grade Crossing Signs
4316 Other Dangers Sign
432 Regulatory Signs
4320 Priority Signs
4321 Prohibition & Restrictive Signs
4322 Mandatory Signs
4323 Standing & Parking Signs
433 Informative Signs
4330 Distance & Direction Signs
4331 Route Markers
4332 Mile Posts
4333 Signs of General Interest
434 Horizontal Markings
4340 Longitudinal Markings
4341 Transverse Markings
4342 Multiple-direction Markings
4343 Graphic Markings
67
4344 Alphanumeric Markings
435 Vertical Markings
4350 Barricades
4351 Channelizing Devices
4352 Delineators
4353 Object Markings
44 Sound Traffic Signals
440 Signals with Single Forms
4400 Movable Bridge Signals
441 Signals with Variant Forms
4410 Audible Pedestrian Signals
2B2 Explanatory and General Notes
41. The UN Conference of 1968 will be  a key source
of terms in the classification. However, it will not be an
exclusive source. National practices and other documents
past and present also enter into the discussion. Traffic
signals are divided into two categories by the 1968 Con-
ference: "Signals for vehicular traffic" and "Signals for
pedestrians only" (UN 1969 CORSS, 5). The UN docu-
ments do not mention other types of signals under a head-
ing of signals. But the publications of that conference
discoursed on the flashing and non-flashing of lights, per-
tinent colors and applications. It is feasible, based on those
written materials, to speak of signals in a more precise and
comprehensive sense and to extrapolate terms for types of
signals when necessary. One area of uncertainty is that of
the "flashing beacon" ("traffic beacon" in 1st ed). This type
of marking, a common feature at intersections in the US and
a variety of other nations, is only partially included by the
UN. The UN Conference refers to amber flashing beacons
and red flashing beacons for special purposes (UN 1969
CORSS, v.) but a general purpose red flashing beacon was
68
not given consideration though several signatories make
very extensive use of such signals.
It has become necessary to add terms to descriptions
of the UN coverage. This action was prompted by lack of
formal names for those devices described but not formally
named. These added terms, often US ones, may be
somewhat imprecise since they are of an unofficial nature.
But they are required for labelling descriptive phrases
lacking names. The classification precludes inclusion of
descriptive statements because of its format.
There are at least two possible approaches to classi-
fication of signals in this study: listing all signals as single
types under one general number, or dividing the signals into
standard (those for which the UN provides a special
heading: traffic signals, and pedestrian signals (UN 1969
CORSS, v), and into special signals. The second approach
has been adopted; 411 so designates standard signals.
Variant and specialized forms are in the variant classifi-
cation.
4110. What is here termed the standard traffic signal
can be divided into types of operation, but for this
classification the one heading can suffice. Older US
MUTCD editions divide traffic signals into traffic-actuated,
centrally-controlled, and isolated-controlled. This is
appropriate for the U.S. but that level of detail is absent in
this study. US MUTCD 1988 has two forms: pre-timed
and traffic-actuated (US MUTCD 1988, 4B-1). 4111.
Pedestrian signals can exhibit a variety of nuanced
differences, but the single heading should be sufficient.
412. Special Signals included four specific forms in the
1st ed and a fifth miscellaneous segment. That last segment
69
drops out here and three additional specific components are
added. 4120. Cyclist Signals exhibit a symbol which
separates this signal from exclusively-light traffic signals.
The UN describes this signal but does not give it an actual
name (UN 1969, CORSS, 93-94). Standard traffic signals,
not infrequently, include bicyclists. 4121. The Flashing
Beacon (termed traffic beacon in the 1st ed) is included in
the main classification since it is a signal for some nations,
and because some UN signals correspond to tnat desig-
nation. The introductory paragraph in this chapter provides
some background on the problem of flashing beacons.
4122. Railway Crossing Signals (termed Level
Crossing Signals in numerous parts of the world) are part of
railway organizations oft times though providing warnings
to road users. These signals can have unlighted dimensions
as well as sound aspects. 4123. Lane-use Control Signals
often display arrows and crossed bars. They are adjuncts of
the standard signal pattern but carry out a more specialized
function. 4124. Movable Bridge Signals include movable
bridge signals but what are termed drawbridge signals and
swingbridge signals. 4125. Emergency Signals frequently
refer to fire truck movements. 4126. Ramp-control Signals
are listed in US MUTCD though not restricted to the US.
4127. Lighting Devices is a US term. It does not refer to
signals but instead to devices marking construction zones
and other temporary situations that are potentially
hazardous. There are a variety of forms which are listed in
the Variant Classification. 4128. Miscellaneous Signals.
These forms are only infrequently included in traffic control
device publications. Specific forms are in the Variant
Classification and include signals for ferry-boat landings and
low-flying aircraft (UN 1968).
43. Unlighted Traffic Signs and Traffic Markings. In
70
this study the second major subdivision of TCD is that of
signs and markings. The differences between signs and
markings are such that a bifurcated classification is possible,
However, since they share the basic character-istics of
visual and unlighted aids they can constitute a basic
subdivision. Traffic Markings refers in large part to surface
(or pavement or road or carriageway) markings. However,
object markings frequently have a vertical dimension. The
word "Unlighted" (absent in 1st ed though present in "H')
adds a degree of precision as to the meaning of marking in a
TCD context. Classification of signs has undergone many
changes from theist ed to the 2nd ed. Signs can have a
lighted dimension though the unlighted is more significant.
A variety of signs are now found in the variant
classification.
431. Warning signs are substantially revised from the
1st ed. This revised version follows the configuration found
in the Database. The remarks earlier in the chapter regarding
classification problems pertains to these signs as well.
There are more than 20 major forms of warning signs in UN
1968 and many of these contain sub-forms. Some signs are
divided into European and US models. Major forms are
included here while others are in the variant classification.
4310. Roadway alignment signs encompasses bends,
curves, turns and related functions. This term replaces
Roadway and Environ signs category in theist ed. 4311.
Roadway Conditions signs includes, in part, Other Danger
Signs I and II from 1st ed. 4312. Warning Signs at
Approaches to Intersections is now simply Intersection
Signs. 4313. Intermittent Moving Objects replaces
Interaction of Vehicles with Other Moving Object signs
from 1st ed. 4314. Temporary Warning Signs for
Constructions is superseded by Construction and
71
Maintenance Signs. 4315. The word Level is added to
railway crossing since it is the basic term in many nations.
4316. Other Dangers Signs. The 1st ed included two such
categories: one for dangers as listed in the several annexes of
UN 1969 document (UN CORSS, 112-113), and one for
dangers which did not fit the categories of this classifi-
cation. A single Other Dangers segment is included for the
2nd ed. Some danger signs are listed in Roadway
Conditions, and others are of a variant form and therefore
located in the Variant Classification.
432. Regulatory signs have three distinct subcate-
gories: priority, prohibitory, and mandatory. The 1st ed
subdivided priority into two segments. However a single
segment suffices in this edition with necessary additions
attached to the variant classification. The 1st ed included
four segments for prohibitory, one for prohibitory and
restrictive, and one for an end to prohibitory and restrictive
signs. 4320. Priority Signs includes two functions: signs for
intersections and signs for narrow sections of roads. 4321,
Prohibitory and Restrictive Signs incorporates that segment
along with segments for turns, passing, speed limit, mis-
cellaneous and single forms. The Variant Classification
includes entries formerly in main categories. 4322. Manda-
tory Signs has no sub-categories but instead includes a
variety of specific forms. This is true for both editions.
4321 Standing and Parking signs is a separate group within
regulatory signs for UN 1968; it was also separate for the
1st ed but it is now part of regulatory signs.
433. Informative Signs. This category in 1st ed (Part E)
has been greatly changed for the General Classification, 2nd
ed (Part H). That revised form is mirrored here. Theist ed
of both Parts E and H had eight subdivisions based on UN
1968. However, five of the groups can be reconfigured
72
under a single heading of Distance and Direction Signs,
4340. This reflects US and IMAM practice. Related
practices in GERSS 1952 and Canada lead in that same
direction. 4331. Route Markers were not listed in 1st ed.
However, previously-mentioned systems as well as
ECAFE employ that term. Road Identification Signs in 1st
ed correspond to Route Marker. 4332. Signs of General
Interest (This term originates in the Database and is a
misnomer: it should read Signs of General Interest [from
UN GERSS 19521) This segment incorporates two
elements both of which previously employed lengthly and
awkward titles: Signs "providing useful information for
drivers of vehicles", and Signs giving notice of "facilities
which may be useful for road users".
434. Horizontal Markings. Surface and vertical mark-
ings underwent major changes in 2nd ed of the General
Classification. 434 includes all surface markings in major
forms with specific forms in the variant classification. 4340.
Longitudinal Markings. This 4-digit segment encompasses
the five segments of the former 3-digit category of 445 in
the 1st ed. 4341. Transverse Markings plays a similar role
for the former category of that name. 4342. Multiple-
direction Markings offers a rather awkward term for surface
markings travelling in more than one direction. It was coined
for the 2nd ed of Part H and it represented an attempt at
encom-passing non-longitudinal and non-transverse
markings involving lines that extend in more than one
direction. But it has proven to be less than precise. The
markings include a variety of standing and parking
markings, oblique parallel lines and perhaps small elements
of other groups. 4343. Graphic Markings includes arrows
and other graphic symbols except for alphanumeric forms.
4344. Alphanumeric Markings includes word and numerical
symbols on road surfaces.
73
435. Vertical markings is a category new to the
database and then to the 2nd ed of the General Classifi-
cation. It recognizes the importance of vertical objects
and/or accompanying symbolic forms. This was lacking in
the lst ed of Part E. Obstruction Markings was employed in
that classification and Obstacle markings in the 1st ed of the
Classification. But those categories, though they partially
included vertical markings were, nonetheless, incomplete. A
variety of these forms are from the US and other nations.
They include 4350. Barricades, 4351, Channelizing
Devices, 4352. Delineators, and 4353, Object Markings.
Some delineators are of a surface form and thereby part of
one or other surface marking segment rather than this
category.
General Note
The Ist ed of Part E included several notes that
compared and contrasted US and Canadian practice with
that of UN 1968. While it may appear parochial to include
detailed comparison of a global system with two North
American national systems it may also provide insights into
the arrangements of major categories of signs. A slightly
reworked version of those notes is hereby enclosed.
It becomes rather difficult to sum up points of
commonality and lack of commonality between US and UN
practices on warning signs. In large part this is because
there are no clear and precise groups of warning signs. This
is in sharp contrast with the practice found with regulatory
and informative signs. This has resulted in an interpretation
of the documents in order to construct the classification.
The main segment of UN danger warning signs has 19
components and no overarching term of inclusion. In the 1st
74
ed these signs were placed under a heading of Roadway and
Environ Signs. In the 2nd ed they are termed Roadway
Alignment Signs. The US pattern has no subdivisions as
such except specific and restricted operational groups. A
very general list of locations and hazards presents 11
segments and no encompassing term. Canada, by contrast,
presents a concise classification of warning signs:
"Physical condition, Regulation ahead, Intermittent moving
hazards, Temporary conditions, and Miscellaneous warning
signs." (Canada A1.03 Class W). The Canadian practice can
be instructive in building a classification.
The UN divides all regulatory signs into three major
categories of Priority, Prohibitory, and Mandatory signs.
These are, in turn, subdivided into specific components of
usage. The US divides regulatory signs into a series of
smaller, more specific operational groups and sub-groups.
Canada has three major groups with one group (Road Use
Control) divided into specific sub-classes.
US Guide Signs (rather than Informative signs) are
divided into three broad categories in contrast to the UN
which has eight groups. Canada has four categories.
2B3 Variant Classification for Traffic Control Devices
1 All Lighted Signals
412 Flashing Beacons
.1 Traffic Signals
10 Flashing Beacons
.100 Warning Beacons
.101 Speed Limit Beacon
.102 Intersection Control Beacon
.103 Stop Sign Beacon
75
I I Lighting Devices
.110 Flashing Warning Beacon
111 Steady-Burning Electric Lamp
.112 Warning Light (3 forms)
.12 In-Roadway Lights
.13 Miscellaneous Signals
.130 Ferry-boat Landing Signals
.131 Low-flying Aircraft Signals
43 Unlighted Signs
431 Warning Signs; 432 Regulatory Signs;
433 Informatory Signs
.2 Signs and Markings
.20 Warning Signs: Roadway Alignments 
Roadway Conditions
.200 Crosswinds
.201 Bends (Four forms)
.202 Descent/Ascent
.203 Swing Bridge
.204 Roads Leading Onto Quay or River
Bank
.205 Uneven Road
.206 Slippery Road
.207 Loose Gravel
.208 Falling Rocks
.209 Carriageway Narrows
.21 Warning Signs: Intermittent Moving
Hazards
.210 Pedestrian Crossing
.211 Children
.212 Cyclists Entering or Crossing
. 213 Cattle or Animal Crossing
.214 Aircraft Crossing
.215 Two-way Traffic
76
.22 Warning Signs: Railway (Level/Grade)
Crossings
.220 Warning of Level Crossing with Gates
or 1/2 Gates
.221 Warning of Other Level Crossings (Two
Forms)
.222 Warning of Intersection with Tramway
Line
223 Signs to be Placed in the Immediate
Vicinity of Level Crossings (Three Forms)
.224 Additional Signs at Approaches to
Level Crossings (Three Forms)
.23 Regulatory Signs: Prohibitory or Restrictive
Signs: Entry Forms
.230 No Entry (One sign, two models)
.231 Closed to all Vehicles in Both Directions
.232 Entry Prohibited for Category of User
or Vehicles (Ten Forms)
.233 Entry Prohibited for Several
Categories (Several Forms)
.234 Entry Prohibited for Vehicles Whose
Weight or Dimensions Excede
Certain Limits (Five Forms)
.235 Distance Between Vehicles
.24 Prohibitory or Restrictive Signs: Other
Forms
.240 Prohibition of Turning (Two Forms)
.241 Overtaking Prohibited (Two Forms)
.242 Overtaking by Goods Vehicles
Prohibited (Four Forms)
.243 Speed Limits
.244 Use of Audible Warning Devices
Prohibited
.245 Prohibition of Passing Without Stopping
246 End of Prohibition or Restriction
77
.247 End of Particular Prohibition (Two
Forms)
.248 Prohibitive or Restricting Standing
And Parking Signs
.25 Mandatory Signs
.250 Direction to be Followed
.251 Pass this Side
.252 Compulsory Roundabout
.253 Compulsory Cycle Track
.254 Compulsory Foot-Path
.255 Compulsory Track for Riders on
Horseback
.256 Compulsory Minimum Speed
.257 End of Compulsory Minimum Speed
.258 Snow Chains Compulsory
.26 Horizontal Markings: Longitudinal and
Transverse Forms
.270 Traffic Lane Markings
.271 Continuous Lines for "Particular
Situations"
.272 Carriageway Limit Lines
.273 Obstruction Markings
.274 Guide Lines for Turning Vehicles
.275 Stop Lines
.276 Yield Lines
.277 Pedestrian Lines
.278 Cyclist Crossing Markings
.27 Horizontal Markings: Multi-directional,
Graphic, Alphanumeric Forms
.270 Arrows
.271 Oblique Parallel Lines
.272 Word Markings
.273 Obstructing Markings
.28 Vertical Markings
.280 Objects--Within Roadway
78
.281 Objects--Adjacent to Roadway
.282 Objects--End of Roadway
.283 Delineators-Curb
.284 Delineators-Upright
.285 Channelizing Devices--Traffic Cones
.286 Channelizing Devices--Tubular Markers
.287 Barricades--Portable
.288 Barricades--Permanent
General Note
Traffic control devices lacked a variant classification
in the 1st ed (1984). A TCD variant classification was added
to the 1st ed of the Classification (Part H, 1994). And a
somewhat revised version of the Variant Classification is
included in this chapter.
The classification consists of two categories: .1
Traffic Signals which is of brief duration, and .2 Traffic
Signs and Traffic Markings; the second subdivision is more
extensive. A variety of traffic signals in flashing mode are
not recognized by UN 1968. However, they are included by
various nations and probably organizations. Hence, their
inclusion here.
The plethora of signs prevented a comprehensive
listing in the 1st ed of Part E. However, a broad range of
signs is included here. The coverage focusses on UN 1968
materials. National differences could not be extensively
included due to space limitations. The UN documents
provide clear indications of the types of signs in use. The
US and, to some degree, the Western Hemisphere nations
employ a wide range of surface and vertical markings.
Many significant forms are included here. The UN's
coverage of such markings is less encompassing.
79
CHAPTER THREE
TCD SYSTEMS GENERATING AGENCIES
AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
3A Introduction
3A1 Introduction to Chapter
While many forms of Transportation-Markings can
be reviewed with only limited reference to the sponsoring
agency that is not possible with Traffic Control Devices.
The diversity in kinds of aids is closely tied to the group or
conference that established the aids. Hence, part of this
chapter is devoted to the formal events of whatever form
that developed systems and individual T-M forms. This
review (3A) will include all forms of TCD (Traffic Signals,
Traffic Signs, Traffic Markings). Ch 3B focusses entirely
on Traffic Signals.
The first chapter of this study examined the
development of TCDs before 1950. That year may be an
arbitrary dividing point between an older era and a more
contemporary phase.Yet the older efforts, including UN
1949, were substantially of a regional nature. It was global
by intent but it followed the European system which
gradually spread beyond Europe. It was not until GERSS
1952 that a more global stance became visible. Regional
efforts since 1950 are influenced by, tied to international
efforts especially that of UN 1968. A plethora of activities
took place before 1968; this is the focus of 3A.
Ch 3B will examine traffic signals in several
segments: Signals 1952-1967, UN 1968, and Changes since
1968. The first edition ended in 1984. This edition includes
events since 1984.
80
The period of time after UN 1949 Protocol and before
UN 1968 Convention was not a fallow period. Seeds that
would enhance cooperation and increase uniformity, and
seeds that would foster increased divergence and dis-
agreement were both planted in this interim era. Growth in
and harvests of those seeds were also factors in this time.
The most significant event of that near two-decades was the
UN Draft Convention of 1952 (Group of Experts on Road
Signs and Signals or GERSS). For a time that effort offered
renewed hope for a truly international agreement on TCDs.
Other noteworthy events of 1950-1967 included
formulation of an Inter-American Manual for much of the
Western Hemisphere. That document brought together
some of the best features of existing (and conflicting)
systems. Canada embarked on a study of TCDs that has
achieved what is perhaps the most sensible system
available. United Kingdom, Scandinavia, Central America,
Ireland examined their respective systems of traffic signs,
traffic signals, traffic markings and forged new approaches
to solving traffic safety challenges.
3A2 The UN Draft Convention, 1952
The "Group of Experts on Road Signs and Signals"
(GERSS) was created for the purpose of continuing the
goal of the UN Conference on Road Traffic (1949). The
goal of UN 1949 was to create a global "unification of
Road Signs and Signals" but this was not accomplished at
that time (UN 1952 GERSS, 1). The Road Signs and
Signals concept (hereafter RSS) of the 1949 attempt was
based on earlier agreements which were nearly exclusively
European. The 1949 Draft Convention was an updated and
expanded version of what is often termed the "European
81
System" (or even the "International System") (UN 1952
GERSS, 1). However, a different system had grown up in
North America and elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere.
The European system was an approach that had undergone
more work than what can be termed the "the American
System." Nonetheless, the latter had become quite
influential throughout the hemisphere (UN 1952 GERSS,
7-8; on the use of the phrase "American System" see UN
1968 PSOC-RSS, 2).
The 1949 Convention had approached road signs on
two levels: 1) A statement of very general principles in the
Convention accompanied by 2) And a Protocol of "detailed
provisions" (UN 1952 GERSS, 8-9 TISRP). The
participants in 1949 found little complaint with the general
principles but they failed to agree on the detailed Protocol.
Agreement could not be achieved because of the existence
of two systems of signage: European and American. This
problem was, in turn, exacerbated by the various
combinations of those systems that were in use in various
nations and regions. The 1949 Convention was opposed to
the notion of multiple protocols since that would
necessitate a choice "between two entirely different
systems" for individual nations. Finally, the hopes for a
single amalgamated system prevented serious consideration
of a double-protocol approach. The Final Act of the
Conference (Par 7 (h)) took into consideration the lack of
an agreement but commented favorably on the "general
desire to arrive at a later stage at the establishment of such
a common world-wide system," and it proposed a study in
order to reach that goal. (UN GERSS 1952, 8-9).
The "Group of Experts on Road Signs and Signals"
(GERSS) was established under the auspices of the
Transportation and Communication Commission of the
82
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of the UN in
1950 (UN 1952 GERSS, 9-12 TISRP). What was the state
of road signs throughout the world when GERSS began its
work? The 1st ed of this study stated that there were two
major systems: European and the American. However,
Krampen offers the view therewere three: The third was
what he termed the "African system" which was sub-
stantially based on the Old British System with dual signs.
GERSS refers to two systems though references to other
versions highlights the dual sign form which supports
Krampen though not listed as a third form. (Krampen
1983, 102).
The differences between European and American were
most pronounced among traffic signs and less so among
traffic signals and traffic markings. In some respects there
were more extensive forms of aids than with Protocol.
Protocol provided an option in form of a plate beneath the
primary sign plate; that option was lacking in the American
system (UN 1952 GERSS, 9-12). Presumably that dual sign
form is British in origin. Variations in the American system
were largely one of language differences among
hemispheric nations. No notable points of divergence were
found in traffic signal practices between the systems.
3A3  The Inter American Manual
of Traffic Control Devices
Early attempts towards establishing a system of traffic
control devices in the Western Hemisphere are reviewed in
Chapter 1. While renewed concern about the state of traffic
control devices was expressed at the 1958 Pan-American
Congress (Tegucigalpa, Honduras) the point of real
beginnings for a manual did not occur until the 8th
Congress of PAHC (Bogota, Colombia) in 1960 ("Project,"
83
I). A strong expression of the need for a TCD manual was
strongly reaffirmed at the Bogota Congress which led to the
formation of the Technical Committee on Traffic and
Safety (hereafter TCTS) in 1964. At that time the director
of ground transport in Venezuela was appointed as
president of a TCTS sub-committee which was mandated to
compose a manual for TCDs in the hemisphere. The
original members of the sub-committee were from
Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, and the US
("Project," 1).
The second meeting of the TCTS met in Mexico City
in July of 1966 ("Project," 1 TISRP). At that time the
President of the sub-committee formally accepted the
project of the manual. In December of that year the same
group held its second meeting and reviewed the study of
signs then in preparation. This meeting considered and
approved the signs of preparation (or warning) and the
signs of standardization (or regulatory). In 1967 the sub-
committee approved the category of informative signs. At
the third meeting of TCTS at Montevideo, Uruguay (in late
November, early December of that year) the Manual was
approved though with some alterations.
The TCTS helds its fourth meeting at the US State
Department in Washington, D.C. (July 29-August 3, 1968)
(PAHC 1968, Final Report,  6). It was noted that Resolution
LXII of PAHC had approved the manual in principle
(PAHC 1968, Final Report).  The procedure for preparing
the manual included examination of actual procedures of
the American nations followed by introduction of ideas of
the sub-committee. Materials from GERSS, and non-
hemispheric sources were also introduced into the
discussions though the process of introducing that
information is not clear. The sub-committee focussed on
84
achievement of uniformity. That uniformity encompassed
identical symbols, colors, and sign shapes. Divergencies
were accepted in the area of word inscriptions (PAHC
1968, Final Report,  9, 13).
The Inter-American Manual is a curious publication
due to its composite nature. The components of the Manual
contain elements familiar to both Protocol and to the
American system. However, these elements do not manifest
into an awkward and ill-fitting juxtaposition. Through the
efforts of the sub-committee, as well as those of GERSS,
the various parts are brought together in a synthesis
resulting in a system superior to more widely-employed
approaches to traffic control devices of that time. The
document, nonetheless, does retain a distinct flavor of the
Western Hemisphere; major sections of the US MUTCD
continue to exercise a major influence. It is in the area of
road signs that GERSS, MUTCD, and the sub-committee
have exemplified, amid the crucible of hemispheric needs,
their greatest creativity.
3A4 Code for Traffic Control Devices, ECAFE
In 1964 the Economic Commission for Asia and the
Far East (ECAFE; now termed the Economic and Social
Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCA.P) promul-
gated at Saigon, Vietnam (now Ho Chi Minh City) an
extensive code for traffic control devices (UN ECAFE
1964, 5). The provisions of the code are very similar to
these of GERSS (UN 1952 GERSS, 35-70). In fact, the
wording of ECAFE 1964 is identical to that of GERSS in
many instances. In other cases the meaning is the same, or
nearly so, though the wording is at variance with that of
GERSS. In a number of instances the recommendation of
GERSS became a definite part of ECAFE and in a binding
85
sense. (UN 1952 GERSS 35-70; UN ECAFE 1964, 8-9).
The 1964 Code altered the draft document in some
key words thereby turning a working document into a
definitive document. For example, the code replaced the
word "Convention" with the word "Code" and the word
"Contracting" was replaced with "Adopting" in the several
places where "Convention" or "Contracting" appear in
GERSS (UN 1964 ECAFE, Part 2, Article 2). A provision
in ECAFE required the adopting parties to inform ECAFE
of signs adopted that are not part of the Code (UN 1964
ECAFE, Article 5). This, or a similar provision, is not
found in GERSS because of the difference in the nature of
the document. ECAFE follows the shorter form (Warning
Signs vs Danger Warning Signs) which, in turn, follows the
pattern of IAMM, US MUTCD and Canadian UTCDC
instead of the longer form employed in European usage and
more general UN terminology.
3A5 Outgrowths of the 1952 Draft Convention
According to TCD literature of the 1960s, several
smaller-scale versions of the 1952 Draft Convention can be
found in use (Zuniga 1964, 1-14; Usborne 1967, 20-23).
Turkey seemingly updated its TCD system "in general
conformity" with GERSS (Eliot 1960, 24). Though the
1975 edition of Trafik Isaretkeri Elkitabi clearly indicates
that the Republic of Turkey employs the UN system of
1968 very closely. In fact, the current Turkish system is
nearly a mirror-image of 1949 and 1968. If Turkey had
somehow employed the 1952 approach, they have entirely
dis-established it. The only sign in the Turkish manual
which can be found in GERSS is the American system Stop
sign. And that sign model was adopted by the European
nations including Turkey (UN ECE 1971, 3).
86
The Republic of Ireland, by contrast, has implemented
the system of GERSS (Ireland, 1979). In its current form
the Irish system adopts the patterns of UN 1968 for
information and regulatory signs but the warning signs are
clearly from GERSS and the American system (the
diamond-shaped sign is now a recognized alternative in the
UN system but its inclusion began with GERSS) (Ireland
1979, 60-61). Ireland is seemingly the only European
nation employing what was originally the warning sign
system of US MUTCD and American system and became
favored by GERSS. Though that system was to become an
officially recognized alternative in UN 1968 (UN 1969,
CORSS, 109).
The Republics of Central America formulated a TCD
system in 1957. This approach was also influenced by
GERSS (Zuniga 1964, 1). Admittedly, some of the GERSS
components (For example, the octagonal shaped stop sign
and the diamond-shaped warning sign) were indigenous to
the Americas.
3A6 Changes and Reformulations of Older Systems,
1950-1967
a) Introduction and United Kingdom
The 1950-1967 period witnessed a proliferation of
TCD systems. Few of these, if any, were based on new and
untried concepts. Most, if not all, adopted and adapted what
had gone before. Some attempted to conform to new ideas;
ideas that would reappear at UN 1968. The 1952 GERSS
effort would underlie some of the interim systems. The
older 1949 system continued to influence some new
national and regional efforts. Central America, Ireland and
87
possibly Turkey followed the lead of the 1952 endeavor
while Scandinavia and the United Kingdom took up the
1949 Protocol; in the case of Scandinavia a considerable
effort was made to incorporate ideas proposed for the UN
meeting of 1968 (Zuniga 1969, 32).
T.G. Usborne (UK MOT) noted in an article on the
adoption of Protocol that the 1952 attempt "did not become
generally acceptable" (Usborne 1967, 20-23 TISRP). While
GERSS did not achieve global prominence it influenced
several national and regional systems as well as influencing
the 1968 Conference. GERSS, however, did not influence
Britain. For many years UK followed what may be termed
the "Old British System" (which was adopted in various
possessions of the British Empire and of Commonwealth
nations). Several years before the 1968 Conference was
held (though after preliminary preparations had begun),
Britain decided to adopt/adapt the 1949 Protocol.
What prompted this change during a time not far
removed from a new international conference on traffic
control devices? In the weighty words of Usborne the
change was made because "the rising tide of international
tourism in Europe ... made symbolization of road signs in
Britain a practical necessity." A committee headed by a
Lord Worboys (and thereby known as the Worboys
Committee) studied and prepared a complete study in the
brief time of fifteen months. The report favored adoption of
the Protocol though alterations on points of detail were
recommended. Usborne looked beyond the British
experience and saw the need for the 1968 UN Conference.
He perceived the opportunity, as did others, to establish the
basis of a truly international system of signs. But that was
not to happen. (Usborne 1967, 20-22).
88
b) Scandinavia
In 1960 the Nordic Council (which seemingly did not
then include Iceland) formulated a Nordic Road Committee
that was given the mandate to establish a "proposal for a
common Nordic traffic code" (Grotterod and Liavaag 1967,
49). The resulting draft was to be a first phase of a project
that would eventually include more detailed signs for each
member nation and promulgated by those nations (G  L
1967, 49).
The Nordic nations were also involved in a European
project to revise UN Protocol of 1949. A working group
termed Group Restraint #3 (CEMT GR. 3) was responsible
for that revision; the Group was affiliated with Council of
European Minister of Tranport (G & L 1967, 49; ECMT
1971). The work of the Europeans would retain its value
since the Economic Council of Europe was heavily
involved in the preliminaries of the 1968 UN Conference
(UN 1967 DCRSS, 1). The work of the Nordic nations on
signs in the early and middle 1960s bears a very strong
resemblance to current sign standards and practices.The
focus of attention of coverage of signs and other aids for
Scandinavia will be that of Norway. Presumably the
Norwegian manual and practices are representative of the
larger Nordic effort (G & L 1967, 50).
c) Canadian Traffic Control Devices
The present Canadian traffic control devices system
dates back to 1956 though some antecedents go back a
decade or more before that. Beginning in about 1950 there
was a growing realization in Canada that the nation needed
to provide a system of uniform TCDs for the motorist
(Finnbogason 1963, 24 TISRP). An early step toward this
89
goal was undertaken by a meeting of the Institute of Traffic
Engineers. Up to that time there were at least five
approaches to TCDs in Canada: British Columbia
provincial government published its own manual; Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Manitoba relied heavily on the US
MUTCD; Ontario promulgated a provincial manual;
Quebec "followed a system of standards adapted to its own
special requirements," and Nova Scotia published a manual
with the US MUTCD as its basis. While it is true that not
all features of the various manuals and systems were
contradictory, nonetheless, there were basic differences on
sign shapes, colors, and sizes. Finnbogason noted that the
intended Canadian manual would lack legal standing. It
was hoped that approval could be gained through the
provincial legislatures.
Further steps toward the hoped-for manual were taken
by a meeting of a Preparatory Committee at Ottawa in
1956, and a Joint Committee was formed in Winnipeg in
1957 (Finnbogason 1963, 24-25 TISRP). The latter
Committee contained subcommittees on signs, signals and
pavement markings. Traffic control device ideas of the US,
Europe, other nations as well as those of Canada were all
examined. An early decision was reached in order to create
messages that would be quickly understood, and to respond
to bilingualism. It was obvious that graphic symbols would
create differences with US practice. It was noted that
graphic symbols would, in all likelihood, become common
in the US as well. The edition of the Canadian manual was
published in 1960.
d) The United States
The US MUTCD edition of 1948 was published
before the UN Protocol of 1949, as well as before UN Draft
90
Convention (GERSS) of 1952. Therefore, US TCD efforts
were untouched by first global efforts at a common TCD
system. The edition of 1961, however, follows after the
1949 and 1952 endeavors. It may be assumed that traces of
influence of the early world-wide efforts can be seen in
1961 edition of MUTCD. Word messages dominate 1961
edition nearly as much as in 1948. Graphic symbols were
rare even by 1961. Changes were evident in 1961 yet not to
the extent that change would be in later editions.
e) The Threshold of 1968: Divergence and Unity
The attempts at building an international signage
system in 1949 and again in 1952 were not entirely
successful. The 1949 Conference centered, as had earlier
European efforts, on the sign experience of Europe even
though the meeting included participants from many parts
of the world. This resulted in the Conference conclusions
being acceptable only to those employing the sign patterns
undergirding Protocol. Instead of greater unity UN 1949
Protocol was a factor in further splintering and polarizing
world-wide sign practices especially in regard to warning
signs and to the stop sign.
The 1952 Draft Convention of GERSS avoided the
pitfalls of 1949. But this well-thought out and expertly
researched system was never presented at an international
conference, though the document was open for signatures.
In the view of some, the refusal of the US to sign the
document resulted in the failure of the GERSS efforts.
However, provisions of GERSS were borrowed, adapted,
and adopted by a variety of national and regional groups.
This, in itself, created both an increase in uniformity and an
increase in the already fragmented state of signs throughout
the nations.
91
To sum up, the decade of the 1960s was a time of wide
spread fragmentation: systems and parts of systems and
amalgamated systems were both dropped and adopted in
many parts of the world. Two features of the 1950s and
1960s would be found present in the UN 1968 Conference:
the European or Protocol system, and the American system.
They would both prove to be too strong and too entrenched
for either of the opposing systems to "knock out" or
eliminate the other. The two approaches can probably be
seen as permanent features of the traffic control devices
landscape. An additional continuing feature is that of the
regional systems. In sub-Saharan Africa, Scandinavia,
Central America, Latin America, Asia and the Pacific,
regional systems have been agreed upon by groups of
related nations. In 1968 it would become, seemingly,
apparent that efforts toward uniformity on a regional,
cultural, or continental basis offered the best possibility for
trans-national signage. It is also true that the 1968 UN
Conference, by offering options and alternatives, somewhat
blurred the distinctiveness of the regional efforts but,
nonetheless, it would also appear that the regional efforts
would continue.
Not only in 1968 but to the present time, the concern
for untiy has continued. Even though the concern has not
resulted in a complete solution to the problem there have
been partial answers on a global-scale and perhaps more
effectively, on a regional level.
92
3B Traffic Signals
3B1 Introduction and Traffic Signals before 1968
a) Introduction
Traffic Signals in the lst edition were scattered over
several chapters since that lst ed was based on historical
chronology and developments of systems. Weaving the
disparate elements together with selective enlargement of
some topics into a unity can be an uncertain task. Signals,
unlike traffic signs, is an often small -- even miniscule --
topic and sometimes a non-existence element in older TCD
systems. This is especially true with developments in the
1920s and the 1930s. This coverage is complicated by the
presence in some form of signals that are outside of
international agreements even though some usage of
signals are in use.
This sub-chapter takes up signals, both types and
messages from 1952 to 1967. This includes events with
Protocol and CASATC agreements. Signal development in
the US are included. Available information on signal usage
of a more restricted basis from Britain, Germany, Japan is
also included. Historical development of signal develop-
ments is taken up in Part J. The focus here is on signals as
they were employed in conjunction with accompanying
mesages. The coverage of the earlier 1960s include GERSS
and ECAFE with their more developed signal systems. The
focus in the later years of the 1960s will be UN 1968 both
in types and messages. Developments in Europe and the
Americas follow upon that conference.
Traffic signals are largely a visual phenomena but a
sound dimension can be present. That sound feature largely
relates to railway level/ grade crossings. But it also includes
emergency signals and on occasion pedestrian signals. T-M
93
History  and the  T-M Database: TCD  in this Series provide
further information on Traffic Signals of various kinds as
well terminology. Some additional remarks here are
substantially from. the Database.
b) Terms
TCD systems have long given detailed attention to
Traffic Signs. Details on shapes, colors, graphic and other
symbols, purpose are found even in early systems of a
simple nature. While Traffic Signals have received less
attention even in some relatively new systems. Admitted
Traffic Signals have a limited range of messages which
requires less quantitative attention than that of signs. This is
especially the case in European systems which give less
coverage, include fewer forms and often lump diverse
forms under a few headings.
UN Protocol 1949 does not include Pedestrian Signals
and subsumes Level Crossing Signal under a broader
category. UN GERSS 1952 omits Pedestrian Signals, refers
somewhat indirectly to Level Crossing Signals and has the
single term of Traffic Signals for the entire category of
lighted signals. In other nations, including Japan and many
nations of the Western Hemisphere the coverage is more
substantial. Various forms of signals are given names of
their own and more forms of signals are available. Traffic
Signals have a larger place in TCD forms and usage.
UN 1968 employs Signals for Vehicular Traffic as it
is primary term. A seemingly specialized term, Highway
Traffic Signals, has had primary importance for that form
of signal in the US. It includes nearly all forms save lighted
signs and barricades. Road Signals is included in the title of
the UN 1949 efforts. Yet the term is not employed in the
94
document. Traffic Light Signals is the primary term for UN
GERSS 1952, ECAFE 1964 and also UN Protocol 1949. It
has more of an international cast than Traffic Control
Signals though there is no specific usage in the Western
Hemisphere. Traffic Signals -- the primary term for this
study -- has a somewhat restricted usage. Canada 1976,
IMSA 1981 and several individual authors employ the term
but there seems little use beyond that. US MUTCD places
the terms within ( ) after Traffic Control Signals. The term
Traffic Control Signal has more specialized use in many
Western Hemisphere nations. It refers to stop-and-go
operations at intersections and is not an overarching term.
Traffic Signal is perhaps a compromise term that includes
parts of terms employed in many systems. It also parallels
basic terms for other kinds of TCD forms: Traffic Signs
and Traffic Markings.
Subdivision terms refer to pedestrian signals, flashing
or traffic beacons, level/grade crossings, lighted devices.
These are reviewed in the Database (TCD 1998).
c) Traffic Signals, 1952-1967
UN Protocol 1949 provisions formed the foundations
for the GERSS approach to traffic signal guidelines (UN
1952 GERSS, 27-28 TISRP). GERSS deliberations took
note of several points of controversy including the use of
flashing amber lights and the use of flashing red signals,
differentiation of flashing red signals at intersections and at
railway level/ grade crossings.
Non-flashing traffic signals follow what has become
the commonly accepted definitions (UN 1952 GERSS, 62-
65 TISRP). Flashing signals, if amber in color, emit the
messages of "proceed with caution" and flashing red
95
indicates "stop, then proceed with caution." This latter
signal was vetoed by the UN 1968 Conference. GERSS
provides for a vertical arrangement of signals: red at top,
amber in middle, and green at the bottom. GERSS includes
heights for mounting of signals. Finally, the Group of
Experts posits a recommended color for the signal housing:
black, "or a dark neutral colour."
There is a high level of agreement between GERSS
and ECAFE in the area of traffic signals (UN 1952,
GERSS, 62-65; UN ECAFE 1964, 14-15 TISRP). One
exception to this unanimity is the allowance of two-color
traffic signals by ECAFE. This two-color approach allows
for a green-red combination as a substitute for the amber or
yellow color in a three-color system. The recommendation
of GERSS on signal casings (or housings) is also found in
ECAFE. That recommendation further suggests casings
should be of a dark color.
Further changes took place in the 1961 edition of US
MUTCD. Pedestrian signals were all to be rectangular in
shape; older circular forms were no longer standard
(Hawkins 11-92, 19). The word "wait" could no longer be
employed since it might be confused with the word "walk"
at a distance. Colors for walk were to be green or white.
Don't walk colors were to be orange or red. Twelve-inch
signal lens were included in the 1961 edition. Lane-
direction control signals were to display a standard design
of green arrow (downward) and red "X".
3B2 Traffic Signals: 1968 and After
a) Documents Preceding UN 1968
A primary focus for traffic signal work is the UN
96
Conference on Road Traffic in 1968. It remains a bench-
mark even if not all global signal issues were resolved
down to the present. The final document promulated in
1969 is only of several documents that pertains to how
traffic signals have developed. A pre-conference publi-
cation in 1965, a draft in 1967 as well as a variety of
working papers at the Conference need to be included.
Provisions of 1965 and 1967 include discussions of
the use of amber and positioning of signal heads. These are
topics also included in Protocol 1949. The 1965 draft
included a provision for an alternative form of traffic signal
in which shape joined color in creating messages. Red was
to be circular, yellow a triangle and green a square. The
1967 draft deleted that idea. Shape is a vital element in
many safety aids and it might have had significance in
signals if a horizontal configuration was followed. (UN
1967 DCRSS-NSG .5613, 17 and .56/4, 7).
The 1967 proposed a "dark arrow" to be super-
imposed for red and amber lenses. That proposal did not
survive the next round of work. The introduction of red
"x"s and green arrows over driving lanes was incorporated
into the 1968 work and subsequently became a frequently
employed aid. (UN 1967 DCRSS-NSG 56/3, 17 and .56/4.
7).
A point of controversy that was never resolved
centered on a single red light in flashing mode. The 1965
draft included it as did GERSS (UN 1952 GERSS, 62-65).
But the 1967 and final draft would not accept the idea. The
single flashing red light is employed in Japan, and many
nations of the Western Hemisphere. And that usage has
continued. A publication entitled Proposals, Suggestions,
and Observations included a request from Japan to approve
97
that flashing beacon at intersections. But to no avail. (UN
1968, PSOC-DCRSS, Ad. 1 TISRP).
Pedestrian signals were to include graphic
representations in the 1965 draft. But the next draft referred
to such graphic symbols as to be preferred but it was not
mandatory. And two-colors pedestrian signals in 1965
became either two or three colors in 1967. (UN 1967
DCRSS-NSG 56/4, 7-8).
The 1965 draft required two red flashing lights
together. This refers to non-intersection usage. But the
newer and also the final draft permitted either one or two
lights. This has an impact on flashing red lights at inter-
sections. One flashing red light at a railway crossing can
suggest the meaning of one flashing light at an intersection
for those nations with flashing red beacons. (UN 1967
DCRSS-NSG E/Conf. 56/4, 7).
Lunar white lights are allowed in some nations at
railway crossings. In the old draft any nations using such
lights were to make a declaration to that effect. But the new
draft speaks of lunar lights as coming under the category of
"domestic legislation." The 1967 includes signals for
cyclists and that provision takes on official status in the
final draft. The 1967 draft also requires that pedestrian
signals "be so designed and arranged" they cannot be
confused with motor vehicle signals. (UN  1967 DCRSS,
19; UN 1969, CORSS, 94 TISRP).
b) 1968  UN Conference: Traffic Signal Messages
The UN Conference papers consider signal message
indications under two headings: "Signals for vehicular
traffic," and "Pedestrian signals" (UN 1968, CORSS, 92,
98
94 TISRP). Traffic signals include one of two types of
signals in the general signal category of the classification
(411), and all of the signals in the special signal category
(412). Non- flashing lights are in three colors: green, red,
and amber. Green indicates proceed. Red indicates Do Not
Proceed (that is, beyond a stop line if present, or into the
intersection beyond the signal where no stop line is
present). Amber indicates that a red signal is so close to
occurring that a vehicle can not safely enter the intersection
(unless it would be unsafe to stop).
Flashing lights have reference to one or other type of
special traffic signals with the possible exception of some
pedestrian signals (UN 1968 CORSS, 92, 94, TISRP). Red
flashing lights indicate that vehicles are not to proceed
(according to the UN but not according to the practice of a
variety of nations). The UN notes that flashing red lights
are found at railway level/grade crossings, movable
bridges, ferry-boat landings, fire-fighting equipment in
motion, or low flying aircraft. No mention of a flashing
signal at intersections is included even though such signals
are in use by some signatories of the Convention (for
example, Japan, the US). Flashing amber indicates that "the
drivers may proceed but shall do so with particular care."
This definition does not appear to preclude amber flashing
traffic beacons.
The UN Conference speaks of three-color light
systems and two-color light systems: three-light systems
include the colors red, amber, and green, while the two-
lights types includes only green and red (UN 1969,
CORSS, 93-94 TISRP). The two-color types are non-
flashing signals and are for temporary use only. One might
consider a traffic beacon with red in some directions and
with amber in other directions to be an acceptable kind of
99
two-color signal systems, but this form of traffic beacon
has been disallowed by the UN. The arrangement of signal
lights can be either horizontal or vertical. Red occupies the
top position in vertical arrangements, with amber in the
middle, and green at the bottom. In a horizontal pattern the
red is to be "placed on the side opposite to that appropriate
to the direction of traffic." Lights are to be circular in all
cases "
The color amber can constitute a signal in itself, and it
can substitute for a three-color signal during times of
reduced traffic (UN 1969, CORSS, 93-94 TISRP). Green
arrows indicate specific directions (s) to which traffic may
proceed. Red lights containing crossed bars indicate
proceed. Railroad crossings are allowed to display "a slow-
flashing white light meaning that traffic may proceed."
Special cycle signals incorporate a representation of a cycle
on the signal face, or a sign depicting a cyclist
accompanying a standard signal. Pedestrian signals follow
the standard norms regarding non-flashing lights and
flashing lights. In these instances the two-color system of
lights is preferred_ Special symbols of varying forms are
not included though seemingly commonplace for some of
the Convention signatories; for example, the UK and the
US.
c) Changes After 1968: Europe and North America
Three publications in Europe (1971-1977) explain
changes in UN 1968 for Europe as well as general prin-
ciples in use. These provisions include rules that require
main signal lights to be of the three-color system either
vertical or horizontal. The lenses are to be circular in shape
and 200mm with larger lens in specific cases. Pedestrian
signals display graphics of human representation with a
100
figure in red for standing, and green for walking. These
signals are to be rectangular in shape. Three-color
pedestrian signals are not employed in Europe.
European usage preferred two red flashing lights at
level crossing in cases where a gate or half-gate was
employed. Three-color signals could be use at crossings as
a supplement but the flashing red signals were to be
present. Other provisions included the requirement that an
arrow in red or yellow denoted only the direction indicated
by the arrow. And amber signal (non-flashing) followed by
a red signal (also non-flashing) could be employed in less
travelled situations.
A comparison of the 1971 US MUTCD with UN
1968 reveals changes in MUTCD influenced by UN. It also
illuminates continuing differences. The 1st ed of Part E
employed 1971 rather than 1978 since it better reflected US
policies, practices in the immediate post-UN era. Flashing
beacons at intersections have been a mainstay in the US for
decades and the 1971 edition continues that tradition. US,
Japan, others nations including in the Western Hemisphere
ignored the stipulation against such beacons.
The UN and the US are also in disagreement over the
messages for pedestrian signals. The UN permits three-
color signals for pedestrians but 1971 MUTCD does not
allow that practice. The UN approved the usage of an
amber light to indicate, "... the green is about to end and the
red light [is about to] come on." For the US a flashing red
DON'T WALK signal conveys the meaning the UN
ascribes to green. For the US a flashing symbol, in green,
indicates "possible pedestrian conflict with vehicles." An
alternative color format was proposed for pedestrian signals
but this was dropped. That change would have allowed red/
101
green signals as well as lunar white and Portland orange
signal colors.
The 1971 MUTCD makes considerable use of arrows.
In this edition green arrows are used to "indicate a
protected movement". Yellow arrows "may be used to
indicate a clearance interval following a green arrow in
displays for specific turn lanes." Flashing arrows were
eliminated from the first draft of MUTCD, though red and
amber arrows are included. However, only green arrows are
permitted in UN 1969 CORSS (Fowler 1970, 27; Shoaf
1971, 62). Hawkins notes the adding of "X" in a flashing
mode for lane-control signals (Hawkins 1992, 20).
Changes in 1978 include adding a graphic symbol for
pedestrian signals (as well as word symbols). Flashing
signal for pedestrians (Walk) was dropped. Information on
ramp-control signals was also included. In 1988 a yellow
arrow was added. It was employed "for clearing a green
arrow." (Hawkins 1992, 21, 22).
102
CHAPTER FOUR
WARNING SIGNS & INFORMATIVE SIGNS
4A 1952-1968
4A1 Introduction
All forms of traffic control devices were subsumed
under history, chronology and systems in the 1st ed of Part
E. This edition places TCD forms on a more immediate
level. Signs represent many and diverse forms so that a
single chapter could not contain all sign forms without
becoming very bloated. Since signs represent an organic
reality the subdividing of signs into chapters could easily
become arbitrary and artificial. The core idea of signs as
interrelated and integrated must be kept in mind even as
signs are placed in separate units.
Signs, along with signals and road markings are
considered together in the years up to 1950 in Chapter 1.
That chapter follows a history and systems approach.
Warning Signs and Informative Signs are examined
together in this chapter. Since Regulatory Signs have a
more complex - and lengthly - development they are
considered separately in Chapter 5. Chapter 4A2 reviews
the more modern era beginning with UN GERSS 1952.
ECAFE and IAMM, along with changes in older systems,
complete 4A2. 4A3 reviews warning signs for UN 1968.
Chapter 4A4 examines changes in warning signs since
1968 with emphasis on Europe, and the Americas.
Signs of warning have had at least three major names:
Danger signs in Europe to and including UN Protocol 1949
(80); CASATC also employs that term (1950, 77). Danger
103
Warning Signs was preferred by UN GERSS 1952 (2) and
UN 1968 (iv). Warning Signs was employed by IAMM
(1967, 22), and the US (1961, 53). It was also used by
ECAFE (1964, 8) which largely followed the practices of
UN GERSS. Some past UK publications also employed
warning for these signs. IAMM , which employed warning
signs in the body of the first edition, employs a different
term under "general specifications". In that context it refers
to Prevention Signs. Seemingly, no other source employs
that term (IAMM 1967, 3).
4A2 1952-1967
The Draft Convention of GERSS offered a more
global perspective on traffic control devices than UN
Protocol 1949 including the topic of warning signs. GERSS
recommended three possible shapes for warning signs
which reflects this broader view. These shapes include:
equilateral triangle (single point upwards), diamond (square
with "one point diagonal vertical"), or equilateral triangle
above rectangle or diamond (UN 1952, GERSS, 39-52
TISRP). The color of the danger warning sign, without
regard to shape, is to display a yellow ground, black
symbols and border (or "a similar dark color"). The three
shapes were for transitional purposes only since the
preferred shape was to be the diamond. The Draft
Convention is a precise document and provides dimensions
for sign sizes, distances from sign to object that the sign
serves as a referent, and height of the sign. Illustrations are
largely graphic in nature and illustrated in the Draft.
The ECAFE (Economic Commission for Asia and the
Far East) Code is very similar to GERSS. Frequently the
recommendation of GERSS became part of ECAFE and in
a binding sense. For example, in a variety of places in the
104
document the words "Convention" and "Contratcting"
become "Adopting" in ECAFE. In the important area of
warning signs the three-choice option of shape and color is
closely followed by ECAFE and this is also true of the
GERSS recommendation for diamond-shaped signs, and
signs with a yellow ground (UN ECAFE 1964, 8-9).
There are also points of difference to be noted
between GERSS and ECAFE in regard to warning signs. A
major change from GERSS is to be found in the color
format of warning signs. ECAFE required a red border
(without regard to the shape of the sign that is employed)
(UN ECAFE 1964, 8). The red border addition was tested
in the GERSS project and it did not add any positive
results. In fact, test results indicate it "did not increase
legibility" of the sign (UN GERSS 1952, 19). Other
differences between GERSS and ECAFE included a variant
design of a level-crossing unguarded in ECAFE. ECAFE
also added a "Road Diversion" (detour) sign, and a "Rule
of the Road" sign (the latter sign has, in turn variant forms)
(UN ECAFE 1964, 26).
IAMM (Inter-American Manual of Traffic Control
Devices)  was promulgated in 1968. In the area of warning
signs there is a convergence between US MUTCD and
IAMM (IAMM 1967, 2-4). The distinctive diamond shape
with a yellow ground and black symbol is found in both
manuals; this parallels GERSS. However, there is
divergence to be found between MUTCD and IAMM.
Warning signs from US MUTCD are replaced with graphic
symbols in IAMM. Zuniga notes that the IAMM system of
sign has much in common with the 1952 Draft Convention.
(Zuniga 1969, 2). Gradually the US MUTCD would move
to much more extensive use of graphic symbols though not
by 1971 when the next edition of MUTCD was published.
105
Changes in other systems from 1952 to 1967 include
some alterations to warning signs. Usborne in discussing
the United Kingdom move from Old British System to UN
Protocol 1949 makes references to GERSS and the
characteristics of the diamond-shaped signs (Usborne 1967,
20). Specifically he refers to the increased sign surface with
diamond-shaped warning signs ("square standing on one
point") (Usborne 1967, 20). Yet Britain adopted the
Protocol system in its entirety. Ireland, by contrast, adopted
GERSS including the diamond-shaped signs (Ireland
1979). Turkey and Egypt were influenced by the work of
UN GERSS in their TCD systems (Eliot 1960, 24).
A new TCD code of Central American republics was in
accordance with GERSS (Zuniga 1964, 1). Of course
GERSS, as previously noted, included the warning sign
shapes and colors of the American system coupled with UN
1949.
Extensive work in Scandinavia on traffic control
devices was to have an impact on UN 1968. However, that
work was in the European mode and warning signs (danger
signs in Scandinavian parlance) followed the forms familiar
in UN 1949 Protocol (0 & L 1967, 50).
The US warning sign system underwent some changes
from 1948 to 1961 MUTCD. New warning signs were
added that included "Yield Ahead", "Merging Traffic" and
"Pavement-width" signs. Some warning signs were moved
into a special construction sign category. However, the
dominance of word messages continued  with few graphic
symbols in use (US MUTCD 1961, Part I-C).
4A3 UN 1968 Danger Warning Signs
106
The UN 1968 Conference made notable progress
toward a global sign system. The European focus of UN
1949 was less a factor. And the more international focus of
UN GERSS 1952 was apparent. UN 1968 did not favor the
American system for warning signs (shapes and colors) but
it did include that system and the advantages of that
approach. A review of the work of UN 1968 is required to
gain an understanding how that system came about.
Article 9 in the 1967 draft approaches an official
status of two models of danger warning signs (UN 1967,
DCRSS, 3-4 TISRP). The draft called for a "reservation for
adoption of the diamond" though no illustrations of it was
provided. The new draft allows for a choice of either sign
"giving slight preference to the triangle," and requiring
users of the diamond to "make a declaration to that effect."
This article in the newer draft requires placement of danger
warning signs on especially dangerous parts of roads; the
E/3999 draft ( 1965) spoke of placement when it was
thought necessary.
Article 10 gives two models of the stop sign: "the
1949 Protocol sign and the red octagon surrounding the
symbol 'Stop' (UN 1967, DCRSS, 5 TISRP). The new
draft allows both the 1949 and the octagon, "both with the
symbol 'STOP'." The 1949 Protocol sign is given
preference which was also the case with the danger
warning sign. Article 10 also permits the "STOP" sign for
use at level [railway] crossings. Article 12 in the new draft
allows for a "black arrow on a white ground with a black
border" even if some other mandatory sign is present.
The Proposal, Suggestions and Observations
document includes observations and concerns of the
participants. Australia asked for exclusive use of the
107
American danger warning sign, and Rumania echoed other
nations and requested exclusive usage of the triangular
model for danger warning signs (UN 1968 PSOC-DCRSS,
Annex 1-2).
The two forms of warning signs included by UN 1968
can be termed the European system model and the
American system model. The first is the equilateral triangle
with a ground of white or yellow, and a red border. The
second is of diamond shape (or "square with one diamond
vertical") (UN 1969, CORSS, 109). This second form has a
yellow ground with a narrow border ("rim") in black (US
MUTCD, I-C). The inclusion of both models is an indica-
tion that the Convention recognized the significance of
more than one model of the sign. Both models come in two
sizes: two-feet across and three-feet across for the equi-
lateral triangle, and one-foot and four inches across and two
feet across for the diamond (UN 1969, CORSS, 112).
UN 1969 divided the category of warning signs into
three segments: a) Warning Signs "other than those placed
at approaches to intersections or level-crossings"; b)
Intersection Signs (a segment which included regulatory
signs at intersections); c) Level [grade} Crossing Signs (UN
1969 CORSS, 109-114). However, UN GERSS and most
other systems regard warning signs as one category and
they are so treated here.
UN sign types are grouped within the classification
categories of this study. Signs within Roadway Alignments
and Conditions include a diverse collection. It includes
dangerous bends to the left, right, and double (or more)
bends. Dangerous descent/steep ascent signs come in two
forms depending on whether the triangular sign or the
diamond-shaped sign is employed. This category also
108
includes carriage-way (or highway) narrows signs that can
exhibit a more general purpose symbol that denotes either a
narrow road ahead, or a more precise symbol that indicates
parts of an upcoming road that narrows. Swing bridge/
quay/riverbank road signs have appropriate visual symbols
to represent those special conditions. Dips, humps, ridges,
and areas of loose gravel signs illustrate appropriate
graphic symbols. Falling rock signs are of two variants
because of the differing shape of warning signs (UN
CORSS 1969, 109-110).
A second category of warning signs is that of inter-
mittent moving hazards. These signs include two forms of a
pedestrian crossing sign, one form of a children crossing
sign, one form of a cyclist sign, and two forms of animal
crossing signs (one for domestic animals and one for wild
animals) (UN CORSS 1969, 110-111),
Warning signs for intersections is a third category.
Symbols for these signs are in black or dark blue (UN
CORSS 1969, 112 TISRP). The signs for these purposes
are subdivided according to the rules or priority. If it is an
"intersection where the priority is that prescribed by the
general priority rules in the country" then the general
purpose signs will be employed. These consist of a "X" for
the triangular warning sign, and a cross-shaped sign for the
diamond-shaped sign. Yet more precise forms are available
that replicate with more detail the patterns of upcoming
intersections; for example, a "Y" shaped or a "T"-shaped
symbol represent intersections of those shapes. Signage is
also provided for those instances in which a motorist must
give precedence to higher priority flows of traffic; the sign
in this instance is an arrow with a "fish-tail" and a cross bar
bisecting the arrow.
109
The basic sign for level/grade crossings displays an
illustration of a gate for those crossings with gates; for
gateless crossings there are choices between a visual repre-
sentation of a locomotive, or an "X" with a section of track
superimposed on it (UN 1969, CORSS, 114-115 TISRP). A
tramway car representation denotes tramways. A second
phase of railway crossing safety protection includes those
signs designed "to be placed in the immediate vicinity of
level crossings." These include an elongated "X" with "a
white or yellow ground and a black or red border," and a
half "X" added to a full "X" to indicate two tracks. A third
version adds a word inscription in black letters. An
additional panel, when added to the final version, can
indicate the number of tracks. The "X"s are to be at least
four feet in length.
An additional aid to safety at crossings consists of
rectangular panels displaying oblique red bars on a yellow
or white ground. Additional panels can be required at
specified intervals between track and railway signage (UN
1969, CORSS, 99-100 TIRSRP). Railway gates themselves
are to be marked with alternating red/white, red/yellow,
black/white stripes. Solid white or yellow stripes are
permitted when accompanied by a red disc centrally
displayed.
The main portion of the UN treatment of warning
signs concludes with a review of marking "Other Dangers"
(UN 1969, CORSS, 112). Dangers not explicitly described
in the UN documentation are marked by a "!" point.
Signatories of the Convention may add other symbols for
this type of danger in accord with the same Convention.
The lst edition of Part E had two Other Danger groups. The
first referred to the UN term and meaning. The second
included a group of signs of disparate signs that would have
110
been difficult to classify in a coherent pattern. These
included low-flying aircraft, cross-wind and two-way
traffic signs. However, the 2nd ed has one such category
since some members of those former categories are now
assigned to the Variant Classification thereby reducing the
need for some of the complex categories in theist ed.
4A4 Regional and National Changes & Implementation
Various implementations of national and regional
systems took place after the completion of UN 1968. A
disproportionate portion of a review of these events centers
on Europe, and the Americas. Both regions had large, long-
established and complex systems of traffic control devices
in place. Not surprizingly changes and alterations in those
systems in response to UN 1968 were needed.
The European nations selected danger warning sign
"Model Aa (UN ECE EASCRSS 1971, 3-4; ECMT 1972,
ERCRTSS, 59-61 TISRP). That model is the European-
originated triangular sign (with point up) that had been in
use throughout most of the century. While the Europeans
would go on to select the American model of the Stop sign
they would otherwise would follow the historic patterns of
the region. The Advance Warning sign for danger warning
(model B 1) for Europe consists of a sign identical to the
warning sign augmented by a "Model 1" of the Additional
Panels segment of the UN Conference. Advance warning
signs for the stop sign consist of a B 1 sign supplemented
by a panel exhibiting the "stop" symbol and the distance to
the B, 2a sign in question.
A comparison of the 1971 US MUTCD with UN
1968 will reveal changes in MUTCD influenced by the UN
conference. It will also illuminate continuing differences
111
with UN 1968. What has been termed the "American
system" underwent substantial change outside of the US
before 1968. GERSS and/or Protocol influence brought
about major use of graphic symbols in Central America,
Canada, and Latin America.
A variety of 1971 Warning signs exhibit a dual
character: a new graphic symbol form, and a traditional
word-only message form. The graphic form stems from UN
and other international conferences while the traditional
word message emanates from 1961 MUTCD and even
before that edition (US MUTCD 1971, Part II C). The 1971
edition expands the section of crossing forms. The
expanded signs give primary attention to the referent of the
sign: cattle, pedestrians, etc. through the use of graphic
symbols. A smaller plate on these signs give the older word
messages (US MUTCD 1971, 79). New warning signs are
added to the earlier edition. These include "Exit" and
"Ramp" Speed Limit signs and a "No Passing Zone" sign
of a new and distinct shape: a "penant shape in the form of
an isosceles triangle with the longest directional horizontal
." (US MUTCD 1971, 82-83, 15).
Construction and maintenance signs became orange on
black in 1971 (Hawkins 11-1992, 20-21). In more recent
editions changes have been more incremental with limited
changes though changes in organization of sign groups and
functions were made. For example, railroad crossing and
school TCD materials became units of US MUTCD in their
own right instead of scattered through the publication
(Hawkins 11-1992, 21). Changes continued though the
basics of warning signs in color, shape, and substantial
committment to graphic symbols continued.
IAMM 1967 displayed marked resemblance to US
112
MUTCD. The 1981 edition was a Mexican production with
different configuration and inclusion of national materials
for a variety of hemisphere nations. Warning signs
continued on largely unchanged since the earlier edition. A
committment to graphic symbols was already firmly in
place in that earlier edition. (RDMCS 1981, SDP, Hoja 1,
1-25).
Europe through ECE followed UN 1968 closely in
most respects. However, Amendment 1 to the Convention
of 1995 indicates some changes from UN 1968. Both
warning signs for intersections and level [grade] crossing
signs are integrated into the general warning signs
coverage. Signs are included for roundabouts, dangerous
shoulders, traffic congestion signs that do not appear in the
UN Convention (UN ECE 1995).
No new edition of ECAFE has been promulgated
though ECAFE influence has continued to some degree.
Asian nations that follow the ECAFE pattern includes
Indonesia which maintains a bifurcated system of Protocol
informative and regulatory signs with the American
warning system pattern. This reflects 1952 GERSS and
1964 ECAFE sign patterns (Indonesia 1986).
113
4B Informative Signs
4B1 Introduction
This category of signs has had multiple names over
the past century and in many systems. The three UN TCD
endeavors employ informative signs (though UN 1968
excerpts standing and parking signs from the category).
ECAFE 1964 (11) and CASATC 1952 (61) also include the
term. US and IAMM (in English) follow an alternate term:
Guide Signs. The Spanish edition of IAMM (1981, 1)
utilizes Informacion. Canada uses information with guide
signs as a sub-component (1976, A4.01).
A third term is that of indication signs. LN 1931
made use of Signs Giving Indications Only (7) while LN
1939 has Caution or Indications Signs (the two sub-
categories when together represent the spectrum of signs
for those functions) (CCT/CDR/4, 8-38, Table V.). Some
authors in the literature (Eliot 1960, 21; Sessions 1971, 83)
have used informational signs which presumably has the
same meaning.
Older informative signs, as was the case with
warning and regulatory signs, are considered in the first
chapter for events beginning from 1950 to the early 20th
century. The first event is that of UN GERSS 1952. The
second UN 1968 conference represents the pivotal effort at
traffic control devices for international cooperation.
ECAFE, IAMM, US as well as work in a variety of nations
and regions mark the post-1950 era.
4B2 Informative Signs, 1952-1967
GERSS informative signs were sub-divided into four
114
segments: Advance direction signs, direction signs, route,
markers, signs giving general information signs (UN
GERSS 1952, 61-62 TISRP). There were two permissable
color formats: light ground an dark letters, or dark ground
and light letters. The color yellow was not to be used on
these signs. The Convention recommended a white ground
and black letters for informative signs. Advance direction
signs were rectangular in form. Direction signs were rec-
tangular with the long side horizontal and displaying an
arrow. A second form of direction sign is of similar shape
but with one end of the sign in the shape of an arrow. Route
Markers were to be rectangular with numbers of letters or
letters/numbers combination. Signs giving general infor-
mation are of rectangular shape and with a color format
identical with that of directional signs. ECAFE 1964, 13
TIRSP) informative signs are virtually identical to GERSS
signs. ECAFE implemented the GERSS recommendation
on color format for this category of signs: white ground and
black letters.
US MUTCD 1961 guide signs was augmented by the
addition of such signs for freeways, expressways. These
signs employed white symbols on green ground. The signs
used lower case letters and were of larger size and higher in
elevation than previous signs (Hawkins 1992, 19). IAMM
1967 reflects the classification of signs from US MUTCD.
However, IAMM uses UN style of signs for the infor-
mation sub-category of signs. The mountain road-closed
and -open sign system of the UN is included, and for that
matter reprinted, in IAMM (IAMM 1967, 50-51; UN 1969
CORSS, 122, 167).
Ireland employed UN signs other than for warning
signs (Ireland 1979, 60-61 TISRP). Ireland made one
change from GERSS in the area of direction signs. The
115
older signs displayed a white ground with black symbols
and border; the newer signs exhibit the green ground with
white symbols and borders; this new format is finding
increasing use both in Europe and in areas well removed
from Europe.
Central America assembled a code for traffic control
devices in 1957 which was heavily influenced by GERSS
(Zuniga 1964, 1). Scandinavia work in change for signs
included direction and designation signs. They made the
decision to use yellow on a wide basis for many of these
signs from small direction signs to large diagrammatic
signs. (G & L 1967, 50-51, Norway 1980, FOOT, Kap.
VIII). Since some forms of Nordic direction signs employ
curve and arrow symbols it would appear that there is a
possibility of confusion for those nations using a yellow
ground for warning signs. This includes Ireland in Europe.
4B3 UN 1968 and Informative Signs
a) Changes in Drafts
A variety of changes took place between the first
1965 (E/3999) and the intermediate draft (E'Conf.56/3)
draft in 1967. These changes included technical and
specialized changes as well as more basic changes.
Technical changes included placement of names on
direction signs and spacing of place names.
A review of UN 1967 DCRSS (14-15 TISRP) and
the final draft UN 1969 CORSS (89-92) uncovers changes
both large and small. Articles 14 to 21 were formerly
known as Informative Signs but these now become
Informative Signs Other than Parking Signs. Article 14
includes very limited changes of the existing material, but
116
the new draft adds three new paragraphs which give details
on the usage of road inscriptions. The second paragraph of
Article 15, on the placement of distance figures and the
third paragraph of the older draft, on the place of road
numbers is deleted.
Article 18, paragraph 2, Place Identification Signs has
been altered; the older draft refers to signs for built-up
areas without designation numbers while the new draft
includes numbers (UN 1967, DCRSS, 14-16; UN 1969
CORSS, 90-91 TISRP). The newer draft includes four
variants of sign E, 9 while the older draft had only two. The
new draft has added a paragraph that provides for an altered
sign for place identification "giving information other than
the name of a built-up area. Article 21 contains a new para-
graph 2 that allows for informative signs being repeated
for a given area (with additional panels for the distance).
The title of Annex 5 in the old draft was Informative
Signs Other than Priority and Parking Signs but the new
draft omits priority from the title (UN 1967 DCRSS, 1,
Annex 5; UN 1969 CORSS, 120). Sign E, 1c, allowing
"pre-selection at intersections on roads with several lanes,"
of Section A is a new sign (UN 1969 CORSS, 120, 162).
Sign E, 2c, a form of No Through Road sign is also
dropped. (UN 1967, DCRSS, An 5, 2-4: UN CORSS, 120
TISRP). Section B in the new draft both changes and
expands design forms of direction signs. Sign E, 6c adds a
third form for airport direction signs which is new to the
final draft. Section C of Annex 5 expanded the older
version of Place Identification signs and a narrative section
has been added. The Confirmatory Sign in the new version
"may be placed on the reverse side of another sign intended
for traffic proceedings in the opposite direction". Section E,
Pedestrian Crossing Signs, expands Sign E, 11 into "a" and
117
"b" forms: one with a pedestrian silhouette and the second
an "irregular pentagon" with blue ground and white sym-
bol (UN 1967, DCRSS, 15, An. 5). Section F, Other Signs
Providing Useful Information for Drivers of Vehicles," is
marked by a new ordering and a re-arrangement of descrip-
tive material though the meaning appears unchanged (UN
1969 CORSS, 121-122). Two new signs for stop and
tramsways have been added, however. Sign E, 21 in the
new draft was E, 19 in the old draft. And again, light
yellow becomes yellow in Section G (UN 1967, DCRSS, 9-
10, An. 5; UN 1969, CORSS, 122).
b) Signs in UN 1968
Informative signs are often rectangular in shape.
Direction signs are frequently of a distinctly elongated
rectangular shape with the predominant dimension hori-
zontal (UN 1969. CORSS, 91. 120-121 TISRP). Symbols
for these signs are white or "light-coloured," with a "dark
ground." The reverse treatment of dark symbols on light
ground is permissable. The color red is to be used only in
exceptional situations, and it is not to dominate. An exami-
nation of the visual representations provided in the UN
documentation indicates one example of an Advance Direc-
tion sign that is square rather than rectangular in shape.
This representation is of a basic sign and not a variant
model.
The Destination and Direction signs in the classi-
fication (and Database) encompasses the UN signs begin-
ning with Advance Direction signs (UN 1969, CORSS, 120
TISRP). These are installed at some distance from the inter-
section leading to the intended direction. The sign comes in
"general case" and "special case" models. The former give
the names of several towns and cities, distances to them,
118
and possibly, directional arrows. The latter do not give
names of towns and cities and distances but instead they
give more specialized information including, for example,
roads that are not through roads, directions for left-turns
and pre-selection of lanes.
Direction signs exhibit distinctly longitudinal rec-
tangular shapes with the name of a single town, and with
the distance in miles or kilometers (UN 1969, CORSS, 90,
120, 163 TISRP). The signage color scheme permits white
and black, or blue and white, formats. These signs may
give the names of several towns, though without distance
data. There are several variations of directional signs,
including airport, campground, and youth hostel signs.
These signs are followed in turn by road identification
signs. These signs are included in the "article" section of
the UN documentation though they are absent from
"annex" and visual sections. The signs for road identi-
fication can accomplish this goal by one of several
methods: by the use of numbers, of letters, or of their name.
This sign consists of the desired symbolic representation
within a rectangle or shield-shaped sign.
Place identification signs are rectangular in shape with
the horizontal dimension as dominant (UN 1969, CORSS,
90-91, 120 TISRP). The signs consist of a white ground,
black rim, and black letters; or a blue ground with white
letters and without a rim. They are found at the beginning
of a "built- up area." An identical sign but with a diagonal
red bar marks the end of such an area. These signs indicate
frontiers between nations, boundaries between sub-
divisions of one country or scenic area, river or other
geographical point or urban area.
Confirmatory signs offer the motorist confirmation of
119
the direction of a route (UN 1969, CORSS, 91, 121
TISRP). This type of information may be required in a
congested area. The sign is rectangular in shape with black
rim, white ground, and white letters. Pedestrian signs come
in one of two forms: either a rectangle in blue or black
containing a white or yellow in blue or black containing a
white or yellow triangle and with either a black or dark
blue representation imposed on it. The other form is in the
form of an "irregular pentagon." This sign projects a blue
ground and white symbol.
The first edition of Part E including the classification,
listed terms from UN including "Providing Useful
Information for Drivers of Vehicles" and "Facilities which
may be Useful for Road Users" for categories of signs. The
Database and the revised classification encompasses those
groups under a different term: Signs of General Informa-
tion. The term is from UN GERSS 1952 (61) and
encompasses a broad spectrum of signs that provide various
kinds of information. Signs Giving General Information
(SGGI). That will be the primary term for this section of
informative signs.
Signs "Providing Useful Information for Drivers of
Vehicles" is a catch-all designation for diverse signs united
only through the broad theme of providing useful infor-
mation (UN 1969, CORSS, 121-122 TISRP). Among these
signs is the hospital sign which can take one of two forms:
a rectangular blue sign with a large white "H" in English or
a blue sign with red cross and white hospital bed impressed
on the ground color. One-way signs display a markedly
horizontal and longitudinal dimension and a horizontal
arrow. The arrow is embossed with the message "one-
way." The No Through Road sign includes the standard
blue ground with white stripes representing the road
120
accompanied by a red band indicating the road is not a
through route. "Motorway" and "End of Motorway" signs
denote the beginning and end of a motorway and indicate
the commencement and ending of special rules. These signs
show a blue ground with dual white stripes that denote the
roadway. Horizontal stripes indicate the beginning of
special rules and red bands indicates the end of such rules
for these forms of signs.
Other signs in this category include the "Road for
Motor Vehicles" sign which exhibits a blue ground with a
representation of a white auto and denotes that motorway
rules are applied to non-motorway roads (UN 1969,
CORSS, 121-122 TISRP). An identical sign with the
addition of a red band indicates the end of such rules. Two
additional signs contain a blue ground with a white
rectangular insert and a busy or tramway representation.
The last sign in the group is a "Road Open or Closed" sign
for mountain roads, especially mountain passes. This sign,
a very complex one, has several panels which not only give
the name of the road section but also are capable of
designating whether the road is open or closed as well as
more detailed information including what part of the road
that is open or closed, and whether chains or snow tires are
necessary. This sign is blue in ground and with letters. It
exhibits a red panel if closed, and a green panel if open.
Also included in SGGI signs is the UN group entitled
"Facilities which may be Useful for Road Users (UN 1969,
CORSS, 122-123 TISRP). This too can be seen as a "catch-
all" designation. These signs have a blue or green ground.
They include a white square insert on which the sign is
displayed. The bottom part of the sign can be established
near the object of the sign. These signs can include a white
directional arrow. The symbols are black or dark blue
121
except for certain exceptions which display red symbols.
This sub-category includes two segments of the UN
documentation: first-aid signs which vary widely from
nation to nation (a cross in some, an Islamic crescent in
others, the Iranian lion in Iran). The second segment
includes "Miscellaneous Symbols," which encompasses
auto repair services, telephone, petroleum, lodging,
restaurants, picnic goods, camping sites, and other "signs
providing useful information."
UN 1968 places standing and parking signs from
regulatory signs and from informative signs into a
combined category (UN 1969, CORSS, 123-125 TISRP).
This study considers such signs in their original "home".
This segment consists of a parking sign indicating
permitted parking areas. This last-named sign is square in
shape with a blue ground and the word or ideogram, in the
national language, denoting parking. A second sign in this
segment indicates "Exit from a limited Duration Parking
Zone." This sign is of square shape exhibiting "a light
colour containing 'Parking Prohibited' sign in light gray
with a black or dark-grey diagonal band or parallel grey or
black lines forming such a band."
c) Aftermath of UN 1968: Implementation and Changes
UN ECE produced Draft Consolidated Resolution on
Road Signs and Signals (RE2) in 1977. This document
included material on informative signs. Topics included
"E" Road Identification, Confirmatory Direction, Diver-
sion, Tourist and Speed Limit signs at Frontiers (UN ECE
1977, DCRRSS, 4-6 TISRP). The "E" European Road
Identification signs include provisions of a detailed techni-
cal nature: height of letters, spacing of letters, the dimen-
sions of sign borders and the ratio of height plate to the
122
letter "E" and numerals. These signs are more thoroughly
considered in the European Agreement on Main
International Traffic Arteries. DCRRSS gives substantial
attention to the characteristics for Confirmatory signs.
Characteristics for confirmatory signs include the
shape, color, and sign dimensions of the sign. Route
Identification signs are to accompany the Confirmatory
signs though they are not incorporated into those signs.
Route identification signs provide the "national number of
the road" information. Further information is also given on
Road Identification and on Road Direction Confirmation
signs. Diversion, or detour, signs, is a subject of some
significance for DCRRSS. The signs are defined, illustrated
and described. The signs are of an unusual traffic sign hue:
that of amber. The large model of the sign gives the locality
name ("led to by the road from which traffic has been
diverted") and the sign is placed at that intersection from
which the detour began. The small model lacks any
inscription and is to be found at all intersections of the
diversion route. Further provisions include specific
categories of vehicles that may be affected by diversions
and any necessary advance warning signs.
Three signs are introduced for tourist direction signs: a
"Car-sleeper" sign, a Trains sign for cars that are to be
loaded onto a train enroute through a tunnel, and a "Ferry"
sign for cars to be loaded on a ferry (UN ECE 1977,
DCRSS, 4-6 TISRP). A Tourist Information Office location
sign is also included. A "General Speed Limit" sign is
introduced for installation at the frontiers of a nation which
has the purpose of notifying visiting motorists of speed
limit information. This sign combines existing UN
provisions with new regulations and norms of European
design. The signage portion of DCRRSS ends with
123
information on the placement of UN signs for the end of a
built-up area in conjunction with confirmation signs and
specifications are given for the use of UN signs for "one-
way roads with more than one-lane."
The 1961 edition of US MUTCD considered all
guide signs in a single unit but new highway designs
dictated a splitting of guide signs into three parts:
conventional roads, expressways, and freeways (US
MUTCD 1971, ix-xii). Conventional road guide signs
include a full array of signs including the traditional forms
(route and other markers, direction arrows, destination
signs, street name, parking area, rest, recreational areas
service signs, etc); many of these signs, which are in the
form of markers, have black symbols on a white ground
(US MUTCD 1971, Part II-D). Destination signs continued
the 1961 practice of green ground and white symbols. Rest,
scenic, and service signs exhibit a white symbol on a blue
ground in the 1971 MUTCD.
Expressway signs, introduced in 1971, adopt many of
the standards of conventional signs (scenic, service, rest,
etc) (US MUTCD 1971, Part 11-E). But the functions of
route markers and destination signs are encompassed
within an "interchange exchange signs" with the new
Manual. These signs, with a green ground, are often very
ample in dimensions and frequently are positioned in an
overhead arrangement. They include several sign functions.
Freeway signs incorporate some portions of conventional
road guide signs but emphasis is placed on large signs
incorporating a variety of guidance information (US
MUTCD 1971, Part 11-F)
Conventional road guide signs in the 1978 edition bear
a very strong resemblance to those of 1971 (US MUTCD
124
1978, Part II-D TIRSP). Service and General Information
signs have eliminated the supplemental plates and now rely
exclusively on graphic symbols. The 1978 edition has
undergone improvements in definitions and clarifications of
materials. Other changes include the concept of "sign
spreading" and improvements in design and layout of signs.
Nevertheless, the general types of signs and the general
norms of shapes, color, and message details in 1978 echoes
those of 1971.
IAMM 1981 gives extensive attention to informa-
tive (guide) signs (RDMCS 1981, SDI Ho 1-89, TISRP).
Both the US and Mexico make extensive use of directional
signals many of which are found in IAMM/MI as part of
IAMM. Both Mexico and the US employ mile/kilometer
posts, street signs and varied forms of route markers. Des-
tination signs bear resemblance to those of IAMM/MI
though a variant color format is utilized by Mexico and the
US. This last point is also true of distance and diagram-
matic signs. The category of general information signs and
auxiliary services includes a broad range of national
differences and nuances. This is especially true of
Argentina, Mexico and the US. These signs include signs
denoting restaurants, hotels, sanitary facilities, tow trucks,
camping sites, and ferry landings. Officially IAMM/MI
includes only a limited number of general information signs
and then only of major forms. Venezuela also is at variance
with standard signs in several instances. For example,
Venezuela includes signs denoting dikes and tramways
neither of which are IAMM/Mil standard signs. The most
extensive collection of variant signs is found in Argentina.
Several dozen specialty signs have been created in
Argentina for tourism and other information needs. Some
are shared with one or two other nations but many are
exclusively Argentinian.
125
CHAPTER FIVE
REGULATORY SIGNS
5A Regulatory Signs Before 1968
5A1 Introduction
The term Regulatory Signs has had many com-
petitors for labelling signs dealing with regulations. This is
in contrast with signs for warning purposes. In that cate-
gory only three terms largely encompass that form of sign
and those terms overlap: Danger Sign, Danger Warning
Sign and Warning Sign.
The term Regulatory Sign is employed by UN
GERSS 1952, and US MUTCD 1971. ECAFE 1964 and
IAMM 1967 also use the term ( UN GERSS 1952, 53; US
MUTCD 1971, 282; ECAFE 1964, 11; IAMM 1967, 5).
UN 1968 employs the term in a variant form: Regulatory
Signs other than Standing and Parking Signs; the later is a
special heading. UN 1968 includes three sub-headings
under the principal term (UN 1969, 87, 112, 115).
However, Amendment 1 (1995) employs the core term
instead (UN ECE 1995, 8).
LN 1931 employed the phrase Signs Giving Definite
Information as the main heading for this category (LN
1931, 6-7). The term included two sub-headings: Signs
Prohibiting Passage, and Signs Indicating an Obligation.
Prohibitory or Mandatory Signs served as the main term for
LN 1939; that amalgam, when split, became the sub-
headings: Prohibitory Signs and Mandatory Signs (1938,
CCT/CDR/.1 min, 3).
126
UN 1949 altered the 1931 term to Signs Giving
Definite Instructions with the sub-headings from LN 1939.
(UN 1949, 80). Prohibitory and Mandatory Signs serves as
the main heading for CASATC 1950 with the selfsame
subheadings (CASATC 1950, 77).
UN GERSS 1952 divides regulatory signs into two
uneven groups: Stop Sign, and Other Signs. ECAFE
follows this pattern. (UN GERSS 1952, 53, 54).
Canada, while a national system, offers a innovative
approach to TCDs in many ways. Canada employs
regulatory signs for its main sign terms. Sub-divisions
include Right-of-Control Signs (divided into stop, yield,
pedestrian crossing control)), Road Use Control (with eight
segments), and Miscellaneous Control Signs (UTCDC
1976, A1.02).
Several Nordic nations created a joint traffic code at
the behest of the Nordic Council. In the detailed working
out of provisions Norway produced a version including
classes of signs. Instead of regulatory signs as a group they
opted for prohibitory signs and for mandatory signs. This
reflects Protocol practice whether the two groups are
separate categories or groupings within regulatory signs (G
& L 1967, 49-50 TISRP).
The material of this sub-chapter is set within a
framework of the classification in Part H, 2nd edition,
2003. The outline (and a form of classification) in TCD
Database (1998) also influences this coverage. The main
classification includes four main sub-divisions: Priority
Signs, Prohibitive and Restrictive, Mandatory, Standing
and Parkings.
127
5A2 Regulatory Signs, 1952-1967
This segment of Regulatory Signs (1952-1967) is a
review of events in the years preceding UN 1968. It
includes a coverage of UN GERSS 1952, ECAFE 1964,
IAMIVI 1967, and the US. Central America, Ireland, United
Kingdom, Scandinavia, Canada are also reviewed.
GERSS followed the octagonal shape for the stop
sign. The ground was yellow with a vertical and horizontal
bar bissecting the sign plate. The ground for the stop sign in
the US was also yellow in that time. The word inscription
was in yellow (UN GERSS 1952, 53-60). Other regulatory
signs were in the shape of a disk or rectangular plate. The
disk was to have a light-colored ground, and a rim or
border of a darker color, and with graphic symbol or word
inscription. The formulation for rectangular shaped signs
was similar. The rectangular sign was "surmounted by, or
embody, a disc with a border or border darker than the
ground of the disc"; the disk could be hollow.
The oblique bar represents prohibition and nothing
else for GERSS (This refers to the bizarre tale of the
oblique bar at UN 1968) (UN GERSS 1952, 53-60 TISRP).
A sign with a limiting or mandatory function is not to have
an oblique bar. The Draft Convention is recommended the
color red for the oblique bar and rim. The Convention also
included sizes for regulatory signs as well as titles and
messages for the regulatory signs.
GERSS has a single approach to regulatory signs (save
the stop sign) in color and graphic symbols. If an action
was not to be taken then the basic symbols was encircled in
red with a red oblique bar. Usborne notes that Protocol
divides regulatory signs into prohibitory and mandatory
128
forms with a blue and white scheme for required actions in
contrast to prohibited actions. He seemingly saw that as a
superior practice (Usborne 1967, 20). Though a single
system with requisite red circle and oblique bar presents a
clear picture. As is noted later in this segment Canada
creates a different approach to required actions.
A number of comparative and contrasting points can
be made about ECAFE and GERSS regulatory signs. The
Stop sign can be either round or octagonal in ECAFE
practice. This choice of options is in contrast to the
American system and GERSS. The distinctiveness of the
octagonal-shaped stop sign resides in that unique shape.
Other shapes lack that singularity and, hence, the avail-
ability of an option reduces that uniqueness (UN ECAFE
1964, 11-13, 26-27 TISRP). The round version of the stop
sign can exhibit a white or a light yellow or yellow ground.
It further displays a red border and red word inscription.
The octagonal form follows the GERSS practice and a
word inscription (STOP) is mandated for this form.
ECAFE opted for the round shape for other regu-
latory signs with a choice of three colors: white, light
yellow, or yellow (ECAFE 1964, 11-13, 26-27 TISRP).
These signs display red borders with a symbol in black (or
a dark color). ECAFE emulates the GERSS practice in the
matter of the red oblique bar even though ECAFE sub-
stantially created the oblique bar dilemma at the UN
Conference in 1968. ECAFE specifies larger signs for
regulatory signs than GERSS. Symbols for regulatory signs
are identical to those of GERSS.
Since the US MUTCD edition of 1948 was published
before UN Protocol 1949, and UN GERSS 1952. US
TCDs were, therefore, untouched by the first global efforts
129
at a common TCD system (League of Nations efforts were
more in a European region mode; UN 1949 is somewhat in
that mode as well). The 1961 MUTCD follows after 1949
and 1952 efforts and therefore one may assume that traces
of influence of early world-wide efforts can be seen in the
1961 MUTCD. A review of points in common and those
not in common may also be in order.
Word messages dominate the 1961 edition as much as
that of 1948. One exception to word dominance is an
alternate form of the "Road Narrows" sign in 1961 (US
MUTCD 1961, 54 TISRP). The use of diamond-shaped
warning signs with yellow ground and black symbols is as
common in 1961 as in 1948.
New regulatory signs in MUTCD 1961 included:
Minimum speed, u-turn, lane-use, pass with care, slower
traffic keep right, uphill traffic, reversible flow and periodic
one-way, one-way transition, keep-off median, and local
traffic signs (US 1961 MUTCD, Part I-B). Perhaps the
most important new sign is the Yield sign. This sign was
first employed in Oklahoma in 1951 (Sessions 1971, 122-
123). A few signs of the 1948 MUTCD were eliminated in
the 1961 Manual; those changes did not great alter US sign
practice.
Canada produced a manual for its traffic control
devices in 1960. A major innovation was the green annular
ring which seemingly originated with that nation. The
green ring around a symbol (such as straight straight arrow,
or a right turn arrow) required executing the indicated
action. This contrast with the more familiar red ring and
oblique bar denoting an action not to be executed
(Finnbogason 1963, 25).
130
Two followers of GERSS warning signs followed
divergent paths for regulatory signs. Ireland adopted the
UN practice of Protocol signs (Ireland 1979, 60-61). The
Central American nations adopted GERSS form of sign
which includes offers a single system of regulatory signs
(with red circle and oblique bar when needed) (Zuniga
1970, 1 TISRP). IAMM followed GERSS on regulatory
signs and permitted regulatory signs to be either discs or
rectangular-shaped sign plates. This reflects GERSS
practice (UN GERSS 1952, 53-60).
5B UN 1968 and Aftermath
5BI The Building of the UN System
A review of the end results of the UN Conference on
Road Traffic might suffice for this study. However, the
process leading to the end results can provide insights, and
understanding into what transpired. This coverage takes up
the Draft Convention of 1967 including both Articles and
Annexes. It also examines the Proposals, Suggestions, and
Observations document of 1968 (UN 1968, PSOC-RSS).
Changes in two Articles pertain to Regulatory signs.
Article 10 gives two models of the stop sign: the 1949
Protocol model, and the American system octagon (UN
1967, DCRSS, 5 TISRP). Both models display the symbol
STOP. The 1949 Protocol sign is given preference which
was also the case with danger warning sign models. Article
10 also permits the STOP sign for use at level (railway
grade) crossings. Article 12 in the new draft allows for a
"black arrow on a white ground with a black border" even
if some other mandatory sign is present.
A group known as the International Prevention of
131
Road Accidents (PRI) wanted uniformity in signs and no
choices among sign models (UN 1968, PSOC-DCRSS,
Annex 4). The PRI viewed the octagonal stop sign as
"undesirable" but was ready to compromise on one type per
geographical region; regional or hemispheric sign types are
found in the final documentation (UN 1968, PSOC-
DCRSS, 14, TISRP). The USSR indicated a preference for
what is often termed the "European stop sign" listed as
B.2a and not as B.2b. The American stop sign, presently
B.2a, was then to become an option instead of a standard
sign type.
A comparative review of UN 1967 DCRSS and the
final and published draft, UN 1969 CORSS (which was
closely based on the working draft of the Second
Committee and of the Conference) indicates a variety of
changes that encompass minor alterations of text, major
revisions, and even the deletion or addition of new articles.
The more notable changes can be briefly reviewed.
Articles 5 to 8 contain general information on the
signs in the drafts. Article 5 (b) 1 under the title "Priority
Signs at Intersections" in the older draft, became simply
"Priority Signs" in the final draft (UN 1967,  DCRSS,  7, 10;
UN 1969, CORSS, 83-86 TISRP). Articles 10 to 13 are
entitled "Regulatory Signs" in the older draft but as
"Regulatory Signs Other Than Standing and Parking Signs"
in the new (UN 1967, DCRSS, 11-14; UN 1969, CORSS,
87-91 TIRSP). Article 10 replicates the change for Priority
signs as in Article 5.
The Annexes of the Convention provide more details
on the various types of signs in regard to dimensions,
colors, arrangements of colors, and other more technical
points than are to be found in the Articles. The text
132
Annexes (which follow upon the end of the Articles) of E/
Conf. 56/3 include the illustrations while the final version
includes them in a special Annex.
Changes in Annex 2, Section A include altering the
name of the "Yield Right of Way" sign to "Give Way sign,
B 1 (UN 1969, CORSS, 112-113, 154). Sign 3, "Priority
Road" sign, B 3 is to exhibit a yellow or orange hue in the
new draft (UN 1967, DCRSS, 2, Annex 2; UN 1969,
CORSS, 112-113, 154). Sign 4, "End of Priority," in the
new draft gives the color scheme as one exhibiting a gray
or black medium band or parallel lines (UN 1967, DCRSS
3, Annex 2; UN 1969, CORSS, 112-113). Information on
which symbol is to be used for the Stop Sign has been
expanded in B 2. An alternative practice section has also
been added to B 2. Reworking of material gives unified
coverage to Yield Right of Way at Intersections signs (UN
1967 DCRSS, 5, Annex 2; UN 1969, CORSS, 113, 152).
Section C of this Annex changes the color format from
light yellow to yellow; this color change is to be found
throughout the new draft (UN 1967, DCRSS, 6, Annex 2;
UN 1969, CORSS, 114). "Regulatory Signs Other than
Priority, Stopping, and Parking" becomes "Regulatory
Signs Other than Priority, Standing and Parking." Both
versions reflect UN 1968 practice of subdividing regulatory
signs into segments. (UN 1967, DCRSS, 1, Annex 4: UN
1969, CORSS, 115).
In the new draft the No Entry sign has two models, C,
4a and C, 4b; C, 4c has been dropped. In the older draft
these signs had a divergent design: the first had a single
horizontal bar, the second had a three-way bar, and the
fourth displaced an "X" (UN 1967, DCRSS, 6, Annex 4;
UN 1969, CORSS, 116). The new models display instead
the standard diagonal oblique bar (UN 1969 DCRSS, 117,
133
157). Section A further prohibits a sign to have more than
three symbols in a built-up area; a maximum of two is
permitted in non-built-up areas (UN 1967 DCRSS, 8-9,
Annex 4; UN 1969 CORSS, 117). Sign C 13a, Overtaking
Prohibited, in permits passing by both motorcycles and
mopeds in the newer draft (Par (d) (ii) of Section A; UN
1967 DCRSS, 2, Annex 4; UN 1969 CORSS, 117).
In the new draft there are two models of Prohibition
of Overtaking signs, and two models of Overtaking by
Goods Vehicles Prohibited Signs (UN 1967, DCRSS, 8-11,
Annex 4; UN 1969, CORSS, 117-118, 158). Finally, the
option of dropping the full "red oblique bar" (,C, 13) is
eliminated (UN 1967 DCRSS, 9, Annex 4; UN 1969,
CORSS, 1969, 118). Paragraph (f) specifies an additional
panel ("Model 2") for the purpose of indicating "the
distances over which prohibition applies". The "End of All
Local Prohibitions Imposed on Moving Vehicles" sign
undergoes a change of color from light yellow to yellow.
Paragraph 1 (a) of Section B, "Mandatory Signs,"
permits signs with a diameter of "not less than .30m to be
used in conjunction with traffic light signals or on bollards
on traffic islands" (UN 1969 CORSS, 118-119 TISRP).
An alternate sign format is permitted that displays white
ground, red rim and black symbols. Other signs are
repositioned in the document and new signs are added
included an alternate to the established "Pass this Side"
sign, and a Compulsory Roundabout sign.
Standing and Parking signs (Annex 6) in the older
draft required a color scheme of half blue and half-white
while a color scheme of blue ground, red border and bar is
given in the new draft. The new draft renames the the
"Stopping and Parking Sign" as the "Standing and Parking
134
Sign" (UN 1967 DCRSS, 1-3, Annex 6; UN 1969 CORSS,
123-124 TIRSP). Paragraph 1 of Section A of this Annex
has undergone a measure of reformulation; especially note-
worthy is the permission to replace Sign C, with a "circular
sign with a red border and a red transverse bar, bearing the
letter or ideogram to denote parking, in black on a white or
yellow ground. The new draft permits the usage of C, 18
(the basic prohibition signs) in countries not employing C,
19, C, 20a, and C, 20b (more specialized sign messages)
and the sign is redesigned. Paragraph 3 retains the meaning
of the old draft but a re-arranging and reworking of the
materials has taken place.
Section B of Annex 6 has undergone a measure of re-
arrangement in the new draft though the meaning
approximates that of the old draft. The phrase "light ground
for parking signs has been excised and replaced by a
specific color, that of blue (UN 1967 DCRSS 4-5, Annex 6;
UN 1969 CORSS, 125 TW.SP). An alternate color scheme
has been added for the "Exit from a limited duration
parking zone sign". The new annex shortens, simplifies
parts of the older draft (Model 1 is kept but not a) and b)
variants of Model 1; Model B is dropped).
5B2 The Problem of the Red Oblique Bar
Perhaps the strangest, and even the most incredible
element, of the 1968 UN Convention on Road Signs and
Signals is the "Note" following Paragraph 2 (a) (iii) of
Section A of Annex 4. The "Note" states that, "It shall be
open to contracting parties to omit from signs C, 3a to C,
3k (Prohibition and Restriction of Entry signs) the red
oblique bar joining the upper left quadrant and the lower
right quadrant or, provided, that this does not make the
symbol less easy to see and understand, not interrupt the
135
bar where it crosses the symbol" (UN 1969 CORSS, 115-
117 TISRP). This provision applies to all signs prohibiting
entry for a "certain category of vehicle or road user." It
does not apply to the general no entry sign, to signs that
indicate "closed to all vehicles in both directions," or to
those having reference to several categories. The C, 13
signs for overtaking prohibited follow the same option
though not specifically listed in the "Note."
The Note is strange because it clearly states that the
sign has the same meaning whether the oblique bar is
included or whether it is excluded! The problem is
compounded by the "Closed to All Vehicles in Both
Directions" sign which is circular with a white ground and
red border and no oblique bar (UN 1969 CORSS, 115-117
TISRP). One might have assumed that a sign without an
oblique bar constituted a permission for the vehicle to
enter. But the sign in question is clearly a no entry sign. Yet
other signs (for example, "No Left Turn", "No Right
Turn") require the oblique bar without option of omission.
In short, there is no consistent principle on the use of the
bar and on the meaning that the bar, or its absence, has.
A review of the development of European-style
regulatory signs may aid an understanding of how the
problem came about. An extension of that review which
includes the oblique bar may provide further implications
of the paradoxical matter. Though it may not provide an
understanding of how such an illogical situation was
allowed to happen.
In all likelihood there were regulatory signs in use in
Europe before 1931. But no official recognition of an
international character of such signs occurred before then.
The 1931 "Signs Prohibiting Passage" were circular with a
136
wide red border and a white or yellow center (LN 1931,
CCURS, 6-7; also Table II, figure 2, TISRP). An exception
was the "One-way" sign which had a red ground and a
white transverse bar (this sign has become nearly universal
including the US). Most of the other signs had a symbol
placed on the white ground and within the red border.
Oblique bars (then termed "diagonal red strokes") were
found only with signs prohibiting parking and waiting. The
waiting signs contained a blue center, red border and the
red oblique bar. The bar has a restricted and clearly
understood function in 1931.
The 1949 Convention followed the direction laid
down by the earlier agreement but expands use of the bar.
"Turning to the Right" (or Left) Prohibited" signs were
added and they included the bar (UN 1949, Protocol, 92
TIR.SP. If previously the red border on signs clearly
signified prohibition or restriction it now developed a fuzzy
meaning since some prohibition signs required the bar and
others did not; in fact almost all Protocol prohibitive signs
lacked the bar. A no passing sign (termed "Overtaking
Prohibited" sign) was added and this portrayed a symbol of
one red car and one black car but without the bar. This sign
also generated confusion.
But the broad expansion of usage of oblique bars did
not begin in 1949. Nor did oblique bars begin with the
earliest draft of a revised signs and symbols system leading
to the 1968 Convention. The change can be traced to one of
the regional commissions most heavily involved in the
review and alteration of the original draft before the 1968
Convention: that of the Economic Commission of Asia and
the Far East (later Economic and Social Council of Asia
and the Pacific [ESCAP]) (UN 1967 DCRSS-NSG .56/4,
12).
137
ECAFE made the proposal to include oblique bars
on a wide selection of regulatory signs of a prohibitory or
restrictive nature referring to single categories of vehicles.
Specifically, ECAFE requested that the red oblique bar be
added to the signs of C,13a and C, 13b; this request was
approved (UN 1967, DCRSS-NSG .56/4, 12). A qualifying
clause was added stating that the signatories may omit the
oblique bar for these signs! (see previous source note). Was
this clause added in a spirit of compromise without duly
appreciating the implications of visually variant signs
signifying identical messages? The European Economic
Commission (ECE) countered with a proposed amendment
to omit the oblique bars from signs C.3a to C.3H and C.3j
to C.3k and C.13a and C.13b but this amendment was not
approved (UN 1967, DCRSS-NSG .56/4, 35, Annex 1).
The problem is compounded by the provisions of the
Final Report  of GERSS in 1952. This report clearly
included the oblique bar for regulatory signs that indicate
prohibition. However, "signs indicating limitations or
compulsion shall be without such an oblique bar (UN 1952
GERSS, 54-55). This means that GERSS mandatory signs
conform to the optional prohibitory signs but with the
opposite meaning (Zuniga 1969, 5).
The problem of the oblique bar and its appearance/
disappearance was not overlooked by various participants
in the 1968 Convention though the initial alteration of the
pre-Conference draft was never overthrown. The USSR
proposed that the oblique bar be omitted from signs C.3a to
C.3k (UN 1968, PSOC-DCRSS, 53-54 TISRP). It was
noted that the bar reduced the clarity of the symbols for
these signs since they partly obscured the symbol. But the
principal justification for this proposal was the view that
138
oblique bars can not be employed with the adjoining group
of signs, C.4 (C.4a, "No Entry for Power Driven Vehicles";
4b, the message of 4a plus, "Animal Drawn Vehicles").
Therefore, the concept of symbolizing prohibition by the
bar "cannot be consistently maintained." This means that
the significance of the oblique bar "loses its meaning
altogether."
The International Road Federation (IRF) requested
that the "signs with a red border and a symbol on a white
ground (presumably without the oblique bar) should be
retained as the standard type and not as an optional
alternative since the proposed modifications would involve
considerable expense and would have no compensating
advantages." (UN 1968, PSOC-DCRSS, 53-54, TISRP).
The international Union of Official Travel Organizations
(OTA) also called for the elimination of bars for C.3 series
signs. OTA justified this proposal by the view that "the
symbols merely supplement sign C.2 'Closed to all
Vehicles in Both Directions,' which has no bar." OTA
further noted that these signs should be termed "'Closed to
...' and not merely 'No Entry ...,' a prohibition which is
notified by sign C.1."
The contention that the bar was not needed was
further buttressed by the International Association for the
Prevention of Road Accidents (PRI). This organization saw
the oblique bar as an encumbrance on the effectiveness of
the symbol (UN 1968, PSOC-DCRSS, 55). It is illogical
since sign C.3f has an oblique bar but not C.8 and C.9. The
bar can create misunderstandings; e.g., C.13 signs can be
confused with C.4 signs (C.13 signs refer to overtaking or
passing; C.4 refer to no entry signs). Therefore, in the view
of PRI, "[tjhe option allowed in the last sub-paragraph of
paragraph (d) for only two signs should therefore became
139
the general rule. The red oblique bar should be retained for
signs C.11 a [No left turns], C.1 lb [No right turns], C.12
[No u-turns] and possibly C.15 [Audible warning devices-
prohibited.
But other nations opposed elimination of the bar.
Denmark, Norway, and Sweden proposed elimination of
the option of dropping the oblique bar (UN 1968, PSOC-
DCRSS, 54-55). This proposed change would apply to
Signs C.3a to C.3k inclusive and signs 13a and 13b. This
change would result in more easily understood meanings
for regulatory signs. The bar represents a "complete no"
better than sign symbols that lack it. It should be noted, in
the view of the previously named nations, that a rational
system even without the bar is superior to a system lacking
uniformity; it would be better to drop all bars than to have
signs sharing a marked degree of affinity to present an
uncertain message projection by some having the bar and
others eliminating it. These remarks refer to signs C.1 la,
C.11b, C.12, C.15. Japan proposed replacement of C.2 with
a new version that includes the oblique bar (UN 1968,
PSOC-DCRSS, 8, Addendum 2). This would create a
situation in which all signs, C.2 through C.3k would then
be uniform. This specific sign is in use in Japan (PICHSS
1972, 37).
While the views of the Western Hemisphere
nations are not represented in the PSOC-DRSS, the
Technical Committee on Traffic and Safety (Pan American
Highway Congresses) considered the 1967 draft of the pre-
Convention documents (PAHC 1968, TCTS-FR, 12-13).
While it did not touch directly on the oblique bar it did
make an oblique reference to the matter: the Final Report
gave final approval to the  Inter-American Manual  which
followed the recommendations of GERSS which included
140
the oblique bar (PAHC 1968, TCTS-FR, 9). The  Final
Report  also reviewed the UN draft convention but did not
follow the confusion-generating ideas on use and non-use
of the oblique bar (PAHC 1968, TCTS-FR, 9). The
Technical Commitee (PAHC) of Pan American Highway
Congresses did express concern about the color blue being
used in regulatory signs as well as in certain guide signs; it
was also concerned about the use of red in both regulatory
signs and in warning signs (PAHC 1968, TCTS-FR, 12).
A review of the decisions by the Second Commitee
(UN) does not indicate any change in the matter of the
oblique bar nor, seemingly, even a consideration of the
issue (UN 1969, SR 1-8th, 24-26). An examination of the
"Summary Record of the Sixth Plenary Meeting" also fails
to uncover changes or even mention of the contradictory
message problem that had been created (UN 1968, SR,
23rd, 8).
A major critique of the issue can be found in the
writings of Jose M. Zuniga (a one-time staff engineer of the
International Road Federation). Zuniga presented his views
orally at the 48th annual meeting of the Highway Research
Board of the US National Research Council (Zuniga 1969,
1 TISRP). He noted that the option of not using the oblique
bar was extended to some signs but not to others. The lack
of consistency is heightened by the GERSS document in
which mandatory signs resemble some UN regulatory signs
though with reverse meanings.
Zuniga further noted the work of the British Road
Research Board which critized the 1949 UN Protocol
which had introduced the "No Right Turn (or Left)" sign
with an oblique bar while displaying a "No-cycling" sign
without an oblique bar (Zuniga 1969, 5-10, TISRP). The
141
reason for omission of the bar? a concern that to do
otherwise would hid the symbol beneath the bar. However,
testing carried out by the BRRB found that untrained
school children performed very well in identifying 1952
GERSS regulatory signs with bars and performed very
poorly identifying 1949 Protocol signs without bars. It was
further found in Britain (after approval of the 1949 sign
system in 1964) that the English motorists were ignorant of
the meaning of a variety of Protocol signs and, in fact, the
response of the British motorists paralled that of English
school children several years earlier.
A two-fold solution is readily available in this matter
of the regulatory signs and the red oblique bar. One aspect
would require that regulatory signs follow the GERSS
pattern and include the oblique bar. The second aspect
would require adoption of the Canadian green annular rings
for mandatory signs. The rings, identical in shape to those
of the UN and of GERSS -- save for color -- denote a
positive instruction that requires following the injunction
symbolized by the sign (Van Vechten 1969, 15). For
example, a green ring around a left-turn arrow indicates
that all traffic must turn in that direction (Canada 1976,
A.109, A.2.30, A.231, A.232). A red-ring around a speed or
weight limit, for example, would then clearly indicate a
negative restriction.
Zuniga sees political considerations at work over
more technical ones in the UN deliberations (Zuniga 1969,
14). This has resulted in compromises and allowances for
contradictory signs and sign messages to attain official
status. The UN did not take the best of various approaches
(the method employed by GERSS) but amalgamated ideas
from different systems with an end result far from desirable
and perhaps far from promoting safety which was the
142
avowed aim of the Conference.
583 Regulatory Signs at UN 1968
UN 1968 apportions regulatory signs among three
groups: priority signs are added to danger warning signs at
intersections (UN 1968, 112-119 TISRP). Priority signs can
be either at intersections or narrow sections of roads. The
principal regulatory category includes prohibitory and
mandatory signs but excludes priority and standing and
parking signs. The third group for standing and parking
signs includes regulatory signs and informative signs. This
coverage reverts to the traditional regulatory sign category.
The classification has four main groups: priority, prohibi-
tory and restrictive, mandatory, and standing and parking.
"Priority at Intersections includes the vital signs of
"Give Way" (or "Yield" sign) and "Stop" (UN 1969,
CORSS, 112 TISRP). The "Give Way" sign indicates that
the motorist is to give way, or give precedence, to the
traffic on the road which bisects the road on which the
aforesaid motorist is on. There is a single form of this sign
and it takes the form of an equilateral triangle with the
vertex downward. The ground of this sign is either white or
yellow and this is accompanied by a red border. There is no
word inscription on this sign according to UN documen-
tation. However, at least in the US the word "Yield" is
frequently found in use. The sign can measure from two to
three feet on a side (0. 60 m to 0.90 m). The Stop sign has
two forms: the European and the American models. The
American model is an octagon while the European (though
that is more and more of a misnomer) form is circular in
shape. The former has a red ground and red border; the
later has a white or yellow ground and red border. The
European model presents a complex symbology: the "Give
143
Way" symbol accompanied by the word inscription "Stop"
within a circle. The American version exhibits a red ground
with the word stop in white letters. The octagon sign is
from two to three feet in height and the circular is two to
three feet in diameter.
The remaining Priority at Intersections signs include
the Priority Road sign and the End of Priority sign (UN
1969, CORSS, 112-113 TISRP). In the first-named sign the
drivers have priority over traffic on other intersecting
roads. "End of Priority Signs" are posted at the point at
which the priority of the road ceases. The priority signs is a
diamond-shaped sign with a black rim, and a yellow or
orange insert in the shape of a diamond. The insert has a
black rim as well, with the intervening space white. The
signs is from one-foot and two-inches to one and three-
quarters feet on a side (0.35 m to 0.5 m). The "End of
Priority" sign consists of the previously described sign with
the addition of a black or gray band running diagonally
across the sign; the band can be solid, or it can be made up
of parallel stripes.
"Priority Signs on Narrow Section of Roads" con-
stitutes the second sub-category of priority signs (UN 1969,
CORSS, 114 TISRP). A sign indicating that oncoming
traffic has priority consists of a round sign with a ground of
yellow or white and a red border. This sign contains a black
arrow indicating the direction of priority, and a red arrow
for the subordinate directions. A second model of this sign
projects a rectangular shape with a blue ground and white
arrow pointing upwards and a red arrow pointing
downwards. Again, the priority arrow is black, and the
subordinate arrow is red.
"Prohibitive or Restrictive" signs constitute a sub-
144
category centered on prohibitory matters (UN 1969,
CORSS, 115 TISRP). This model of sign is circular in
shape and at least two-feet in diameter "outside built-up
areas" and at least one and one-quarter feet in diameter
(0.40 m to 0.60 m) in "built-up areas." These signs exhibit
a yellow ground with an accompanying wide red border.
Symbols and inscriptions are black or dark blue; oblique
bars, when present, are red in color. The "No Entry" sign,
which denies entry to all vehicles, is comprised of a cir-
cular-shaped sign with either red ground and white trans-
verse bar, or red rim, white ground, red oblique bar and
black arrow pointing upward. The signs so far described are
general purpose signs. There are more specific forms. In
these models the prohibited object replaces the arrow.
Prohibited objects include vehicles, motorcycles, bicycles,
pedestrians, animal-powered vehicles, tractors, and vehicles
exceeding a specified width, height, or weight.
Prohibitory signs pertain to other matters as well. For
example, restrictions on turn manuevers include "No-turn"
signs which in turn include "No Left", "No Right" and "No
U- Turns" (UN 1969 CORSS, 117 TISRP). These signs
represent normal prohibition sign designs with the addition
of an appropriate arrow denoting the prohibited type of turn
maneuver. Prohibitory overtaking (or passing) signs
include prohibitions for vehicles in one direction, and in
two directions. There are yet other signs prohibiting
passing by goods (freight) trucks; these portray, through
graphic symbols of a red truck and a black auto. A variant
form illustrates both of these symbols in black but with a
diagonal red bar across the underlying symbols.
Prohibitory signs for speed limits constitute a variant
classification entry. It is a single form though with many
message configurations. In bureaucratic parlance this sign
145
indicates "Maximum speed limited to the figure indicated"
(UN 1969, CORSS, 117), Other prohibitory signs include
"Prohibition of the Use of Audible Warning Devices" and
"Prohibition of Passing Without Stopping" signs (UN 1969,
CORSS, 117-118). The last-named indicates a required
stop at an adjoining customs house. A symbol denoting the
word "customs" is to be included in the sign symbol.
Ending of prohibition or restriction signs completes
this category of signs. The "End of all Local Prohibitions
Imposed on Moving Vehicles" is installed where the
prohibition ceases (UN 1969, CORSS, 89, 118, TISRP).
This sign is circular with a yellow or white ground. A black
rim is allowed but the sign has no border. A gray or black
band (or stripes in the same color) completes this sign. This
sign is the general prohibition end sign. There are also
signs for particular types of prohibition endings. These
include the "End of Speed Limit" and "End of Prohibition
of Overtaking" (or Passing). The diagonal bar is light gray
for the last named signs.
Mandatory signs make up the final sub-category of
regulatory signs. These signs are circular in shape and at
least two-feet in diameter for areas "outside of built-up
areas" and a minimum of one and one-quarter feet in
diameter (0.40 m to 0.60 m) in "built-up areas." (UN 1969,
CORSS, 89, 118-119, TISRP). Mandatory signs are blue in
ground with white symbols; white signs with red rims and
black symbols can serve as an alternative. The symbols are
arrow(s) indicating the correct direction(s). An alternate
can be employed: a rectangular sign of markedly elongated
horizontal dimensions with black ground, white rim, and
white arrow symbols. This sign can be term an American
model, while the first described model can be designated
European (also known as international). Other mandatory
146
signs include the compulsory "Roundabout", "Cycle
Track," "Foot Path," and "Horseback Rider Path" signs.
Further mandatory signs include Compulsory Minimum
Speed, End of Compulsory Minimum Speed, and
Compulsory Snow Chains signs.
5B4 Aftermath of UN 1968: Regulatory Signs
1968 UN had an effect on regulatory signs as it did
with warning signs. Again, a disproportionate portion of the
following comments center on Europe and the Americas.
ECE opted for the American system Stop sign rather
than the European-based model; that is B, 2a instead of
B,2b. It will be noted that B, 2a was narrowly defeated in
the UN Convention as the sole stop sign model for the
world. Despite that defeat it is becoming commonplace
throughout the world. (UN ECE EASCRSS 1971, 3-4,
ECMT 1972; ERCRTSS, 59-61, TISRP).
A third document has an impact on European
regulatory signs. This document, Draft Consolidated
Resolution on Road Signs and Signals (R.E.2.) (UN ECE
1977, SC1/R.15/Rev 1; hereafter DCRRSS).  The provisions
of DCRRSS cover a broad range of sign-related topics
including sign requirements for level-crossings, the
interaction of tramways, trolley-buses and trains with
pedestrians and motor vehicles, lanes for slow-moving
vehicles, and thawing conditions on roads. Tramway,
trolley, and trains on roadways which are exempt from the
authority of a road sign are to have this fact announced by
an inscription on the road sign in question (UN ECE 1977,
DCRRSS, 3-4 TISRP). Advance announcement of lanes for
slow-moving vehicles on steep grades is introduced
through a new sign. Other signs for such lanes consist of
147
UN standard signs for maximum speed limits, and for
announcing of the end of slow-moving vehicle lanes. Two
provisions affect signage for level-crossings. Both disallow
the use of a specific sign when used in conjunction with
standard signs at crossings.
In the Western Hemisphere the US MUTCD for 1971
continued to have a strong word-emphasis for sign
symbols. The European originated "Circular red Do Not
Enter symbol" was to be found in the 1971 Manual
(Fowler, 1970, 28). The Yield sign becomes white in
ground, red in border and inscription. The black inscription
on yellow ground of the 1961 version is eliminated (Fowler
1970, 28). The observation of one observer that more
graphic symbols "would readily permit practical
international uniformity" (Shoaf 1971, 60) suggests
strongly that graphic symbols had yet not reached a
meaningful level in the US. The Stop sign remained the
same and in fact became a major "export" to other nations
and regions. The US became isolated, however, as Canada
and the Inter-American Manual adopted more and more
graphic symbols (Shoaf 1971, 61).
A variety of signs (No Right Turn, No U-Turn, No
Trucks, etc.) are given two versions in the 1971 MUTCD
(US MUTCD 1971, Part II-D TISRP). The old word
message is presented as an alternative while a new graphic
symbol version is introduced; these later types also contain
a word message which is mounted benearth the graphic
symbol form. The new international version of Do Not
Enter is supplemented by a Wrong Way word message is
allowed as an supplement to the "parent" form. All urban
and rural parking and stopping signs either exhibit a
permissive (green borders and symbols) or a negative (red
borders and symbols) in 1971. Previously they were in
148
black on white. Only the Emergency Stopping and Parking
signs for expressways maintain the old motif. Hawkins
notes the introduction of the No Passing Zone sign in
pennant form with red ground in 1971. Only stop and
parking signs used red before 1971. The railway crossbuck
sign switched from warning to regulatory status in 1978
(Hawkins 1992, 20). Hawkins comments on several
significant changes for the 1988 edition but none of these
seemingly referred to regulatory signs (Hawkins 1992, 22).
A review of 1978 MUTCD shows a continued shift
to a graphic-symbol stance. Some of the graphic symbols of
1971 that were in tandem with word-messages have
become exclusively graphic in 1978 (for example, Turn
Prohibition signs) (US MUTCD 1978, 15). Nonetheless,
examples of alternative word messages remain, including
the Keep Right and Pedestrians Prohibited signs (US
MUTCD 1978, 2B-18 and 2B-21, 2B-29). The role of word
message signs is still strong but there is a definite decline in
such signs.
Canada's green annular rings, dating back to 1960,
have a prominent role in the 1976 edition of UTCDC.
Canada has clearly and logically answered the problems of
the oblique red bar of UN 1968 for many users. Canada has
improved upon the mandatory signs of GERSS as well.
Canada employs the oblique red bar on all prohibitory signs
("interdictory symbols") or negative messages (Canada
UTCDC 1976, A1.09 TISRP). There are no other options
for the use of the bar. However, mandatory signs are to
exhibit a green ring. These are positive in nature and they
indicate mandatory or permissive messages. Represen-
tatives of each include No Turn signs which exhibit the red
oblique bar; Left or Right Turn signs which are mandatory
exhibit a green ring; signs indicating prohibition of trucks
149
or cyclists have the oblique bar; a truck route sign has a
green annular ring. These signs are rectangular or square in
shape with the symbols painted onto the signs. Signs of a
circular shape are seemingly unknown in Canada.
The number of signs exhibiting circular symbols is
less in Canada than in the UN system (Canada UTCDC
1976, A1.09 TISRP). Signs such as Speed Limit signs
follow the rectangular pattern with a white and black
format; numbers for speed limits are the same as in the US.
The concept of green rings denoting positive messages and
red rings, with oblique bars, for negative messages has
much to recommend itself to other nations.
The 1981 revision of the Inter-American Manual/
Manual Interamericano  was carried out under the auspices
of Mexico. The revision is a vast volume measuring nearly
a foot in width and two feet in length (RDMCS 1981
TISRP). The layout of the volume has bearing on
regulatory and other signs. It refers to the Manual in  its
entirety but it also gives more specialized attention to
selected nations in the hemisphere. The volume is three-
columned with the Manual occupying one column, one for
proposals and one bifurcated into a Mexico sub-column and
the a second variously occupied by several nations:
Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Uruguay and the US. The
substance of the publication (the specifically I.AMM/MI
part) is in accord with the 1967 edition. The format of the
volume allows for national differences; it gives consider-
able attention to Mexico, the sponsoring nation. It can be
noted that the Mexican nation has given considerable
attention to a meaningful system of traffic control devices
and extensive coverage of that system would have been
required even with a different formulation of the Manual.
The 1981 edition of the Manual is entirely in Spanish.
150
The Stop sign follows the design of 1967 (which
came from US MUTCD; RDMCS 1981, SDR, Hoja 22,
TISRP). The Spanish "pare" is used in place of the English
stop. Uruguay retains the same shape but adds a broad
middle bar with "pare" on the bar. Mexico substitutes
"alto" (halt) for "pare." Mexico's stop sign has a white rim
and a red ground instead of the more common red ground
with a white rim set inside the outermost edge of the sign.
The IAMM/MI Yield sign retains the 1967 appearance. The
US retains the same shape but with a broad red border and
the world Yield is included on the sign.
Other regulatory signs emulate the older edition
(RDMCS 1981, SDR, Hoja No. 22, TISRP). This means
essentially that both versions accent the graphic symbol
stance. The US has increased graphic symbol usage but it
continued to employ more word message embossed signs
than other hemisphere nations. Many of Mexico's
regulatory signs follow the IANIM/M1 designs but without
following the common circular shape of signs. Most
Mexican regulatory signs consist of the appropriate symbol
within a red circle but this is imprinted on a square sign
plate; Canadian practice is very similar in this regard.
Uruguay offers a series of speed regulation signs that
are somewhat at variance with hemispheric practice. This is
true of both minimum and maximum forms (RDMS 1981,
SDR, Hoja No. 17-22 TISRP), Both Mexico and the US
have signs for specific categories of vehicles. For example,
an exclusive bus lane. The UN sign excluding several
categories of traffic can be found in the US and in Mexico
though seemingly this sign is not found elsewhere in the
hemisphere.
151
Formerly, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific areas were
active in traffic control device developments highlighted by
CASATC and ECAFE. Neither system has been updated.
At least three nations in that vast area have engaged in
practices that can be noted here. The Republic of South
Africa (a centerpiece of CASATC) has adopted the
Protocol style of UN 1968 (van der Nest 1972, 140-42,
TISRP). South Africa has made some changes and deviates
from that norm. One such change (and one that is labelled
"minor") is of considerable consequence: the red oblique
bar is retained wherever possible for prohibitive signs.
Dark blue is the ground color for all signs excepting stop,
yield, no entry, priority signs. Red serves as the ground
color for stop and no entry signs.
Japan revised the traffic code of 1963 in 1970. Exist-
ing ideas, UN 1968 and ECAFE 1964 were elements in the
changes. Japanese regulatory signs, following established
practice, were divided into regulatory and indication signs
(Kikura and Matsushita 1972, 31-33, TISRP). General
usage of the red oblique bar was approved. The US style of
the stop sign was dropped in favor of the UN Protocol
model. ECAFE favored a black ground, white arrow and
red rim for a variety of mandatory signs but Japan preferred
a blue ground with white symbol.
Australian practice as appearing in the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices,  1975 includes Australian
practices, UN 1968 and US MUTCD elements (ACORD
MUTCD 1975, 5-6 TISRP). Some signs are very similar in
appearance and written description to those of US
MUTCD. A notable example is that the stop sign which
follows the American pattern. The legal description is very
similar: "The octagon shall be reserved exclusively for the
STOP sign."
152
CHAPTER SIX
TRAFFIC MARKINGS
6A Introduction and Before 1968
6A1 Introduction: Terms, Classification, Overview
Road markings are not so much as mentioned in the
first three international agreements on road safety . These
three agreements all had a European cast. (CRICMV 1909,
ICRMV 1926, LN 1931 CCURS). The first mention of
road markings in such a context is in the 1949 UN Protocol
(UN 1949 Protocol, 11-112). In this study road markings
before 1952 are considered in Chapter 1. Remarks about
road signs, and road signs in international agreements, can
not be transferred without a measure of caution, to road
markings. That is, signs are an ubiquitious element in
traffic safety and though no nation may employ the full
gamut of sign types all nations maintain some forms of
signs. Road markings are often more recent, more restricted
in forms and uses. And a sweeping, global presence is more
muted. Even UN 1969 treats road markings at variance
with its treatment of signs. For example, illustrations for
markings (Annex 8) are clearly stated to be a recommen-
dation in contrast to the status of sign illustrations (UN
1969 CORSS). This greater leeway in the usage and design
of markings creates a more uncertain situation in coverage
of that topic.
Comments regarding road markings as more modest
in scale and significance are not intended to denigrate the
value of road markings. With the increasing density of
traffic and the increasing cost of road construction, the
literally lowly road marking has more and more uses. A
153
variety of forms of pavement markings have become com-
mon, and not merely only the long-established center-line
markings. Road markings not only mark existing roads and
highways but are capable of creating traffic zones and lanes
at low cost thereby improve traffic control effectiveness.
While signs may have greater import than road markings
the significance of traffic markings, in the totality of traffic
control devices, has increased in importance.
A variety of terms are employed for this form of aid.
The term Road Markings (along with Road Signals, Road
Signs) is commonly employed in Europe (and in documents
allied with European practice). Perhaps there is an under-
lying philosophy in Europe that attaches TCD forms to the
road while in the Western Hemispheric practice relates
TCD forms to the movement of vehicles (Database Iii
1998). The first and third UN agreements use Road
Markings (UN Protocol 1949, 111; UN 1968, 95). A term
frequently employed in the Western Hemisphere is that of
Traffic Marking. That term -- in tandem with Road
Marking -- became the basic term for the Database.
Pavement Markings is also employed as an over-
arching term. It finds use in UN GERSS and ECAFE (UN
GERSS 1952, 28, ECAFE 1964, 15). IAMM (IAMM
1967, 58) includes that term along with other terms. There
is an obvious drawback to the term in the fact that it does
not readily include object markings which may be above, or
off, the actual pavement. Surface Markings also manifests
that drawback (ECE 1957, 1); that is also true of Road
Surface Markings (ECE 1995, 62; UN 1965, 95). This
study includes a variety of terms with traffic markings and
road markings as the primary terms. The term Marking
alone is yet another term employed in the literature yet it
has serious drawback since it competes with the term of
154
markings in its broader, more inclusive meaning of
markings for all  safety aids (Database Iii 1998, 145-146;
IAMM 1967, 58). Australia addresses the issue by using
two terms: Pavement markings, and "Islands and other
Devices". The second term includes kerb, hazard, raised
pavement markers and other forms. While the practice
allows some otherwise hidden forms to surface it also
divides a single category into two separate groupings
(ACORD 1975, 117, 125). Admittedly, surface and above-
surface non-sign markers display differences (and such a
description can admit to an awkward construction) but by
function they have the same nature.
The 1984 classification in the 1st ed. lacked a variant
version and as a result many more specific forms of aids
were included in the main classification than now. The
three-digit level included longitudinal markings, transverse
markings, standing and parking markings, other markings.
The classification in Part H (and now in this study) has
only two three-digit segments: horizontal markings (which
includes the first two groups in the older classification as
well as new segments), and vertical markings which
includes barricades, channelizing devices, delineators, and
object markings. That two-part device will influence this
coverage though the practices of UN 1968 will also affect
the construction and coverage of this study.
6A2 Traffic Markings 1952-1967
Early Traffic Markings are first considered in Chapter
1 yet that coverage is sparse since they are missing from
European systems until the 1949 Protocol. UN GERSS
provides a more extensive coverages that includes three
forms of traffic markings: longitudinal, transverse and other
markings (UN 1952 GERSS, 65-71 TISRP). The first-
155
named can be subdivided into solid lines with the meaning
of "no crossing" (no passing zones in US terminology),
broken lines (which are guidance lines and can be crossed
when it is safe to do so), and solid/ broken lines in a
parallel pattern indicating "no passing" or "no crossing" for
the line of traffic bounded by the solid line. Transverse
Markings ("Zebra Crossings" in UK usage) provide stop-
lines and crossings for pedestrians and cyclists. The section
of other markings includes "parking restrictions, turning
movements of vehicles and markings indicating physical
obstructions in or near the carriageway." White is the
recommended color for pavement markings in the Draft
Convention.
European nations produced a document on road
markings entitled, European Agreement on Road Markings
in 1957 through the UN ECE at Geneva. The background
of the agreement is not included in the publication though it
bears considerable resemblance to UN Protocol 1949. It is a
shorter, and a more general treatment than more recent
European efforts on road markings (ECE 1957).
IAMM 1967 (1, 58, 59, TISRP) presents a coverage of
these aids that is very similar to that of US MUTCD.
However confusion is generated by terms in the table of
contents: The possibly unique form of Pavement Marks
instead of Pavement Markings is employed and this term is
joined by the term delineators. However the term in the text
is Markings. And within the category of markings are
pavement markings, curb markings, object markings and
reflector markers (hazard markers and delineators).
Delineators is subsumed into a category within the
markings coverage though the term and use is at variance
with the practice outlined by the table of contents.
However, the actual contents follows the logical,
156
descriptive sequence familar to North American users.
ECAFE's usage is similar to that of GERSS in many
respects though differences are present. The first article of
ECAFE on pavement markings is somewhat at variance
with that of the corresponding treatment in GERSS.
ECAFE includes descriptions and definitions of pavement
markings and introduces a subordinate term: Surface
markings (ECAFE 1964, 15-16; 1952 GERSS, 65 TISRP).
Coverage of longitudinal lines is similar in meaning,
though the word "continuous" is substituted for "solid
lines" in GERSS. The treatment of transverse and other
markings is similar to that of GERSS except for differences
in the format of the ECAFE treatment of the topic. GERSS
includes an examination of the matter under the pertinent
articles. ECAFE provides general information in several
articles and specific coverage in a separate "Section A
Detailed Specifications for Uniform Pavement Markings."
There is no "Section B."
The color yellow for no-passing markings became
standardized in US MUTCD for 1961. Previously some
states used white while others used yellow. However, the
1961 edition eliminated white for that function. A no-
passing line consisted of a solid line on the right of the
white center line. A centerline stripe was recommended for
all paved roads. as well. Previous editions of MUTCD
recommended not using white edge markings but 1961
reversed that recommendation and allowed "permissive use
of white edge lines ." (Hawkins 1992, 19).
Canada's work toward a traffic control manual
included road markings. Pavement markings were to be
yellow for edges of pavements, curbs, parking restrictions
and certain other purposes. White was to be employed for
157
all other situations (Finnbogason 1963, 25-27; also Macnee
1960, 18).
6B UN 1968: 
6B 1 Review of Drafts
A review of the Convention drafts (E/3999 to E/Conf.
56/3) on road markings does not reveal an extensive range
of changes (UN 1967 DCRSS, 1-26,  8; UN 1969
CORSS, 95-97, 125-146). 
take place include some alterations in the usage of broken
lines, and the approval of blue markings for the regulation
of parking (UN 1967 
CORSS, 95-97 TISRP). The newer draft adds a require-
ment indicating that if yellow and white are both used by a
nation, the use of colors must adhere closely to classes of
markings associated with those colors. Article 30 and the
Annex of illustrations, as previously noted, are
recommendations contrary to Articles 25 to 29 on signs
which have a mandatory character.
A comparison of E/Conf 56/3 (UN 1967 DCRSS)
draft and the final draft, E/Conf 56/17 (UN 
indicates the two drafts are essentially the same; there are
few changes of significance. One change to note is the
replacement of the term "road surface markings" with that
of carriageway markings (Article 25) (UN 1967, DCRSS,
20; UN 1969, CORSS,  95 TIRSRP). In both drafts a
secondary term is provided in parenthesis: "road marking."
The journey of road markings from E/3999 to E.Conf 56/3
to the Final Act is remarkably smooth, coherent, constant
and notably uniform when contrasted with the journeys that
the signs portion of the Convention underwent.
158
In summary, the less complex road marking process is
due to two factors: UN 1968 represented the first extensive
treatment of road markings while UN Protocol 1949
considered only three forms of road markings. A long
history of a system of road markings did not precede the
most recent international conference. Hence, there are no
dual-systems or multiple systems of road markings. This is
in the sharp contrast with the experience of road signs. The
simplicity of markings is also aided by the more limited
range of range marking functions. Most markings are some
form of painted lines and these lines cover a restricted
range of roles.
6B2 UN 1968 Provisions
Traffic Markings approved by UN 1968 include
Longitudinal Markings, Transverse Markings and Standing
and Parking Regulations (UN 1969, CORSS, 125-130, also
95- 97). The essential characteristics of Traffic Markings
include several factors. According to the UN Convention,
surface markings are to be of "non-skid material," and this
material should not be more than a quarter inch (6mm)
above the level of the carriageway (UN 1969, CORSS,
125-126 TISRP). Studs and related devices "should not
protrude more than 1.5 cm above the level of the roadway."
Reflective markers, when employed, should not be more
than 2.5 cm above the surface. These requirements
illustrate clearly the horizontal dimension of pavement
markings. However, some markings are of a vertical nature,
and this may obscure the distinction between signs and
reflective markers. This obscurity may be reduced by
recalling that signs have graphic and word symbols, and
these are generally absent from markings of a vertical
nature. However, there are word inscriptions in pavement
markings, but they are very much of a horizontal nature.
159
Longitudinal markings are those continuous and
double-lines which vehicles are not to cross (UN 1969,
CORSS, 95, 126 TISRP). Broken lines are not prohibitory
in character but are rather demarcation lines that guides
traffic or either warns that a continuous line is in the
immediate vicinity, or that a danger is located further along
that portion of the roadway. Longitudinal markings that
denote edges of roads, and longitudinal markers conjoined
to transverse markings for parking spaces, are considered to
be outside of the longitudinal markings category. Longi-
tudinal markings are to be less than four inches in width.
When these lines are broken, the line gaps and strokes are
to be of equal length. Double lines are to be four to seven
inches apart. Broken lines (strokes) "outside of built-up
areas" are to be 6.5 inches (2m) to 32' (10m) in length.
Strokes in "built-up areas" are to be 3.33 feet (1m).
Traffic lane markings can take one of several forms.
On two-way roads outside of built-areas (and built-up areas
for two-way streets and one-way streets with two or more
lanes), the centerline is comprised of (in most instances) of
a broken line (UN 1969, CORSS, 126-127 TISRP). Three-
lane roads are marked by broken lines in some cases, and
by continuous lines or a continuous/broken line tandem in
yet other instances. Carriageways are separated by one or
more continuous lines with broken lines between lanes of
each direction. Special considerations are employed where
roadways are narrowed by traffic islands and other objects,
and at significant intersections. "Continuous Lines for
Special Purposes" are frequently applied "where the range
of vision is restricted" and on three-lane roads and where
"changes in widths of carriageways" are present. Broken
lines are recommended for carriagerway limits. This is
accomplished with continuous lines and possibly
160
augmented by reflective devices or "buttons." Obstruction
markings are comprised of a series of diagonal lines, often
in a rectangular pattern, near islands other than obstruc-
tions. "Guide Lines for Turning Vehicles," provide
guidance on correct turning procedures. These markings are
yellow or white; blue can be employed for parking
purposes.
The second category of road markings is that of the
transverse markings (UN 1969, CORSS, 128-129 TISRP).
These include stop lines, and similar markings at signals
and level (railway grade) crossings that run across one or
more lines. These lines are wider than longitudinal lines
[b]ecause of the angle at which the driver sees markings on
the carriageway." Stop lines are eight (0.20m) to twenty-
four inches (0.60m) wide with a recommended twelve
inches (0.30) for width. A stop line (with accom-panying
stop sign), so situates motor vehicles that the motorist has
clear vision of other motorists at the same intersection.
Longitudinal lines and the word Stop may supplement the
stop line. Yield lines or "Lines indicating points at which
drivers must give way" are eight to twenty-four inches in
width. This can be replaced by a series of triangles painted
on the ground with the vertices positioned so as to indicate
which drives were to yield to opposing traffic. The triangles
are to be sixteen to twenty-four inches at base and twenty-
four to twenty-eight inches in height.
Pedestrian markings "should be at least equal to the
width of the stripes and not more than twice that width ..."
(UN 1969, CORSS, 129-130 TISRP). Stripe widths are to
be three-feet and four inches to four feet and eight inches
(1m to 1.4m). Minimum width is eight feet "on roads on
which the speed limit is sixty km/h [37 mph] and 4m [13']
..." on the faster road or roads without speed limits. Cyclist
161
crossings are denoted by a double broken line. The line
"should preferably be made up of squares" sixteen to
twenty-four inches across with an open area between the
squares of the same size. The crossing width should be at
least six feet. Restrictions for standing and parking can be
established on curbs and/or pavement. Parking space limits
can be indicated by applying appropriate lines.
Other types of Traffic Markings include a diverse
group of aids. Arrows indicate proper lane usage and also
aid in delineating traffic direction on one-way streets (UN
1969, CORSS, 129-130 TISRP). Arrows are to be at least
six feet and seven inches (2 m). A second form, oblique
parallel lines, indicate areas off limits to motor vehicles.
These can include median strips and some forms of traffic
islands. Word markings can indicate a variety of functions
including regulating, warning, and guiding of motorists.
The words employed are to be easily understood with
letters "elongated in the direction" of traffic movement ...
." The letters need to be eight feet in height for speeds of 30
mph/50 km/h. Obstruction markings can be located on
obstacles or adjacent to the roadway. A typical obstacle to
mark would be an overpass abutment. Diagonal black lines
on a white background would be a typical marking for such
an obstruction. (previous source, and Diagram 27).
6B3 Aftermath of UN 1968
The nations of Europe were active in working on
road markings after 1968. While UN 1968 did not provide
a color code for edge of pavement (or carriageway)
markings but the European regulations requires the
individual nation to adopt a color or color system for all of
the national territory. (UN ECE ECASCRSS 1971, 6;
ERCTSS-ECMT 1972, 67 TISRP). The following color
162
code was adopted: white or yellow for carriageway
bollards; white or light yellow for edge markings or white
or yellow for edge marking the carriageway "opposite to
the direction of traffic; " and red or dark yellow marking
the edge of the carriageway "appropriate to the direction of
traffic".
The Protocol on Marking ... of ECE was promulgated
at Geneva in 1971. It presents a substantial series of
additions, deletions and revisions of UN 1968 for the
European nations that were (or later became) signers to the
document. The markings Protocol was prepared after
ERCRTSS and is much more extensive than that document.
This document, following the format of UN 1968, can be
considered in two parts: a preliminary section on the
Protocol and related matters, and an "Annex" detailing
alterations of the UN publications (UN ECE 1973, PORM
1-11; Annex 1-13).
PORM includes two changes in Article 26 of
Chapter 4 two changes: "double broken lines for reversible-
flow lane [s)" have been added, and a provision that longi-
tudinal-lines for standing or parking prohibitions or restric-
tions are not to be construed as longitudinal markings (UN
ECE 1973, PORM, 1-3 TISRP). Such lines are part of the
standing and parking category and are therefore outside of
the province of longitudinal markings. There are three
changes in Article 27 permits a single line only for stop
lines and removes the option of either one or two lines.
This Article also restricts the lines adjacent to the "Give
Way" sign to one line. Finally, PORM restricts cyclist
crossing markings to "broken lines consisting of squares or
parallelograms" for those crossings.
PORM adds new paragraphs in Article 28 on the use
163
of lines (continuous, broken) for prohibiting, and restricting
lanes for specific vehicular categories (UN ECE 1973,
PORM, 2-3 TIRSP). Colors are also specified for lines in
Article 28: blue for parking markings (permitted,
restricted), yellow for parking restrictions (by the use of
zig-zag lines) and yellow for standing or parking (curb,
carriageway lines) both for prohibited and for restricted
purposes. Article 29 specifies a single color for parking and
parking restrictions rather than present a choice, or optional
usage.
Changes in Annex 8 (Chapter II A, "Longitudinal
Markings") introduces several changes including a
requirement that broken lines be at least double for
specified cases (UN ECE 1973, PORM, 4 TIRSP). This
Chapter also reduces the size of strokes for lines in Article
26 (2 (a) (i) with the adjoining gaps to be two to four times
larger than the strokes. The second segment of 2 (a)
requires the strokes to be two to four times greater than the
gaps. A new paragraph, replacing Paragraph 6 of UN 1968,
requires continuous lines to be at least 65 feet ( 30 m) in
length.
PORM removeds references to "outside built-up
areas" and "in-built areas" ("Traffic Lane Markings" in
Chapter II B (UN ECE 1973, PORM, 4-6 TIRSP). These
had provided sub-divisions within the chapter. This chapter
also replaces UN 1968 reference to "two lanes" with "three
lanes ... on two- way streets" in reference to "Oblique
parallel lines." Treatment of special marking formulations
is also increased. And, finally, reference to the specific
form of longitudinal markings for two-lanes two-way
carriageways is dropped. Double lines for road with more
than three lanes is restricted in the European usage. Single
continuous lines are "to be wider than the lane-lines on the
164
same section of road" is a new stipulation that is added. A
"double warning line" is permitted for "each edge of the
reversible lane [s]" according to the a new requirement.
References to illustrations of the marking of one-way road
[s] and of the carriageway of a motorway" are added. The
PORM system of numbers and letters replaces those of UN
1968; this is true of several paragraphs of the PORM
document.
"Marking for particular situations," encompasses a
series of specialized changes for PORM (Chapter II C) (UN
ECE 1973, PORM, 4-9). These include defining "range of
vision" and an amalgamation of adjoining paragraphs in
UN 1968 into Paragraph 17 of PORM. Paragraph 18
reworks UN material and concentrates on gaining the
maximum use of three-lane roads through the medium of
pavement markings so as to reduce 3-lane roads to 2-lanes
or through the assigning of two lanes for one- direction of
traffic. Some paragraphs were deemed superfluous for
European usage. And finally, Paragraph 22, on the
changing the width of a carriageway, refers to speeds of 60
km rather than the 50 km of UN 1968. Paragraph 23 of the
same chapter underwent serious revision. This part of the
document provides a "warning line" for preceeding
continuous lines. This warning line is to be 333' (110 m) in
for higher speed zones and 151' 50 m) in zones with speeds
no more than 60 km/h. "Deflecting arrows" are appended
as a supplement to the warning lines.
Paragraph 26 (Chapter II D), "Border lines indicating
the limits of the carriageway," specifies a width for border
lines: minimum width is to be 0.10m or 4" and 0.15m or 6"
for "motorway or similar road [s] (UN ECE 1973, PORM,
9 TISRP). Paragraph 28 of Chapter II F, "Guide lines and
arrows at intersection," expands the UN text by specifying
165
the use of guide lines for left-turns (in right-hand nations)
and right-turns (in left-hand nations).
PORM adds a variety of changes for Transverse
Markings (Chapter III). Paragraph 32 of Chapter III B,
"Stop lines," is shortened (UN ECE 1973, PORM, 10-12
T1RSP). Paragraph 33 of Chapter III C, "Line indicating
points at which drivers must give way," are to be one-line
only; two-lines are not permitted though triangles are an
acceptable alternative. Paragraph 35 drops specific
mathematical formulations for triangles. Paragraph 37 of III
D, "Pedestrian crossings," alters the UN coverage by
reducing the minimum width of stripes and spaces for
pedestrian crossings. It recommends traffic signals for
crossings on high speed roadways. Paragraph III E,
"Cyclists crossings," provides for a 3m or 9' 9" width for
"two-way cycle tracks" and permits parallelogram for
oblique crossings.
Chapter IV, "Other Markings" contains a variety of
changes after work by PORM. Paragraph 39, in Chapter IV
A, "Lane-selection arrow markings," clarifies the use of
arrows by naming them as "lane selection arrows" (UN
ECE 1973, PORM, 12-13). Paragraph 40 (Chapter IV B),
"Oblique parallel lines," is greatly expanded. Additional
attention is given to the use of chevron markings. Two
paragraphs of UN 1968 are consolidated for European
usage and substantially revised: sizes for letters for speeds
over 50 km/h now apply to speeds over 60 km/h, and a new
size of letter is prescribed for speeds up to 60 km/h (1.6m
or 5' 4"). Paragraph 46 of Chapter IV E, "Marking of
obstructions," provides color formats for obstruction
markings. These are to be either black and white or black
and yellow.
166
Corrigendum 1 of PORM replaces diagrams A-1 and
A-46 with revised versions of those diagrams (UN ECE
1973, PORM, Con. 1). The first-named concerns longi-
tudinal markings, and the second-named refers to
"Examples of word markings with speed limits of 60 km/h
or less."
The US MUTCD continued to exhibit more
extensive and sophisticated road markings than those of the
UN. Nonetheless, the US continued improvements in
markings (Shoaf 1971, 63; US MUTCD 1971, 178-186).
These changes included changing the color of centerline
markings from white to yellow, revising markings for no
passing lanes and for lane separation lanes. The 1978
edition called for edge lines in white for the right edge of
roadways, and yellow for the left edge. Barricades and
channelizing were moved from construction to markings
portion of MUTCD (Hawkins 11-1992, 19).
167
APPENDIX I
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
This Glossary does not attempt to offer a complete and
definitive listing of necessary terms. Rather, it endeavors to
provide an operational set of terms that will clarify the
meaning of special words in the monograph. Several terms
are included from Foundations,  Part A that may help to
explan concepts and ideas referred to in this study. The
definitions may not manifest completeness or etymological
purity. They do, hopefully, provide basic definitions and
descriptions. Some entries are less definitions than trans-
lations of foreign terms or English language terms not
familiar to American and other readers more conversant
with "American system" than Protocol concepts. Only a
few are direct quotes; most entries are distillations of
definitions and descriptions based on a variety of sources.
The Glossary is divided into five segments:
i. Classification system numbers terms
ii. Message characteristics terms
iii. Marking types terms
iv. Transportation terms
v. Political terms
i. Classification Systems Terms
The great number of terms employed in Part E (and
the intermingling of terms among various phenomena
requires a kind of charting at taxonomic terms and their
corresponding meanings. Entries include more general-use
terms as well as those with more specific significance for
Traffic Control Devices.
168
DIVISION. A  term only rarely employed in this
study. It refers only to the "family" number (first digit) in
the classification system. The divisions and numbers are:
marine aids to navigation
(floating) -1
(fixed) -2
aeronautical nav aids -3
traffic control devices -4
railway signals, signs -5
SUB-DIVISION. This refers to the nature of message/
family or mode numbers (first and second digit). For
example, 41 refers to a TCD traffic signal (4 for TCD and 1
for all-lighted).
CATEGORY. Three-digit numbers are referred to by
Category. For example, 411 refers to a TCD signal of the
full or traffic variety.
SUB-CATEGORY. This term refers to the special
situation in which markings are sub-divided at the four-
digit number level rather than at the three-digit-number
level. For example, Can and Nun Buoys  (International
Marine Aids to Navigation,  Parts CM) are bifurcated at the
three-digit level, but traffic signs are very prolific which
requires a further sub-division at the four-digit level.
TYPE. Type refers to individual markings and certain
categories of markings and is designated by the four-digit
number. For example, Pedestrian Signals, 4111; Lighting
Devices, 4112.
169
ISOLATE. A special term for a marking that is of a
singular character with no variations whatever.
PART. This is also a special use term. It denotes a
distinction within a given two-digit number area. For
example, it is necessary to separate traffic signs from traffic
signs within the unlighted area of TCD forms. 431-433
designates signs while 434-435 indicates traffic markings.
ii Message Characteristics Terms
SIGN. This term denotes that phenomena that serves
as a representation of some other object; for example, an
illustrations of falling rocks that indicates the presence of a
nearby cliff littered with loose and potentially hazardous
rocks. Sign, in this sense, is semiotical and encompasses all
forms of Traffic Control Devices. Signs, in a more
restricted sense, exhibits a symbol (color, shape, graphic
representation, word message) and projects a single
message though varying symbols may be used to effect that
message.
MODEL. In UN parlance model refers primarily to the
shape of signs. Two models of the "Stop" sign are available
(Protocol and American) and two models of Danger Warn-
ing signs (again, Protocol and American) are available. Of
course, the intent of the respective signs does not vary
because of model difference (UN 1968, CORSS, 109).
SYMBOL. For the UN a symbol is the graphic repre-
sentation on a sign. While seemingly the color of the
symbol is part of the symbol the other factors (shape, color
of ground, rim and so forth) are not. Neither are word
symbols (termed "word inscriptions") included under the
appellation "symbol." The US follows suit in excluding
170
word messages from the category of symbol. A broader
notion would include all aspects of the sign, including the
sign post, as a genuine symbol (UN 1968, CORSS, 109; see
also US 1961 MUTCD).
GROUP. In this study "Group" refers to a narrow span
of signs which are closely related; for example, the
direction signs of UN 1968.
RANGE. For this monograph "Range" will refer to a
broad category of signs; for example, warning or guide
signs.
VARIANT. An informal synonym for symbol or
model, and for other situations in which a nuanced
distinction between signs is needed.
FORM. The specific representation that a sign
exhibits, and that distinguishes one sign from an adjoining
sign.
GROUND. This refers to the dominant color of a sign.
US MUTCD employs BACKGROUND instead though the
meaning remains the same. Other colors and graphic and/
or alphanumeric symbols are placed over the ground color.
BORDER. A stripe of paint or other substance located
at or near the edge of a traffic sign. US, Canada, GERSS
and UN 1949 all employ this term. UN 1968 uses R1114
instead. The two terms have approximately the same mean-
ing. UN 1968 refers to the rim or border of the American
warning sign as a "narrow rim." This would suggest a
nuanced distinction between rims as a wider stripe or edge,
and border as a more slender variant. UN signs of the
"European system" have broader edging than warning signs
171
and the "Stop" sign of the American variety. US practice
notes that dark borders are set within the edge of the sign
while lighter borders extend to the edge of the sign. The US
refers to the very broad border of the "Yield" sign as a
BORDER BAND.
PANEL. This term can legitimately refer to the metal,
wood, or other surface of all signs. But it would appear to
have a more restricted usage referring to surfaces contain-
ing no word or graphic symbol (save painted or taped
striping), and for supplemental signs attached to some stan-
dard signs. The US, for example, makes use of barricades
comprised of horizontal or vertical materials which are
termed panels. The UN employs similar substances to signs
for level-crossings. PLATE in some national usage appears
to be identical in meaning to supplemental signs or panels.
Canadian TABS are yet an additional example of the notion
though under a different appellation.
iii Types of Marking Terms
SIGNAL. A Transportation-Marking that produces a
lighted message of a changing character (for example,
proceed, stop, caution). At least one major language, that of
French, does not have separate words for sign and signal:
Unlighted signs are SIGNAUX while Lighted signals are
termed SIGNAUX LUMINEUX. The word traffic is
usually added to the word signal to denote signals intended
for full control situations at intersections.
TRAFFIC BEACON. US and selected other nations
have employed this term and it forms a interconnecting unit
with Traffic Signals and Traffic Markings. It designates a
signal with a continuously flashing light in contrast with a
fixed and alternating light. The message does not vary
172
whether it a caution message, or a stop and proceed
message. FLASHING BEACON has replaced Traffic
Beacon in more recent editions of MUTCD. Though
Traffic Beacon remains a key term.
SIGN. A non-powered Transportation-Marking with a
message based on graphic, word and other symbols. It is
usually a vertical unit as opposed to the normally horizontal
dimensions of pavement markings.
TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES. A term employed
by a variety of nations including the US. However, it is not
a UN-sanctioned term. Canada attempted to have the
phrase (abbreviated as TCD) entered into the UN 1968
documents, but this proposal was not approved (though the
term is found in road traffic documentation of UN 1968).
An unbrella term for Traffic Control Devices is apparently
not available in non-English languages unless the French
term SIGNALIZATION qualifies.
PAVEMENT MARKINGS/TRAFFIC MARKINGS/
ROAD MARKINGS/CARRIAGEWAY MARKINGS/
ROAD SURFACE MARKINGS. There are numerous
terms for this form of safety aid. Traffic Marking has
considerable merit since it can form a troika with Traffic
Signals and Traffic Signs. However, that term is not
overwhelmingly employed. UN 1968 and the International
Muncipal Signal Association employ the term Road
Marking and that term thereby becomes a major term in the
category. In the US and other nations the term Pavement
Markings is frequently employed though it is not fully
adequate. It is possibly that Pavement Markings manifests a
somewhat loose definition that allows inclusion of objects
in or near roadways. But the term does not satisfactorily
include a variety of devices that are commonly seen as a
173
part of non-sign markings. Since there is no fully-
acceptable umbrella term for this group of safety aids this
has led to a multiplicity of terms for this group of safety
aids. These terms are also marked by contradictions in and
among the various terms. The contents for this form of
trafic control device includes all lines, patterns, words,
colors and other devices -- except signs -- set into the
surface, applied upon, attached to the pavement, curbs, or
objects in or near the roadway.
INFORMATIVE SIGNS. US and selected other
nations employ GUIDE SIGNS. These signs provide route,
destination and scenic points information.
DANGER WARNING SIGNS. WARNING SIGN is
also employed by the US and other nations. DANGER
SIGN is an added alternative form. This form of sign marks
present or potential hazards.
REGULATORY SIGNS. Highway and road regulations
are projected through this type of sign.
SIGNAGE. According to Charles McLendon (author
and semiotics consultant) " is one single word which we
believe succinctly describes any aggreation of signs that
effectively meets user requirements ... ." (Letter to writer,
Feb. 10, 1983). It may not be found in the full range of
standard dictionaries but it provides resonance with more
established terms such as buoyage and beaconage.
iv Transportation Terms
MOTORWAY. This term is the approximate
equivalent of Limited Access Highways in the US. This
term and most other terms in section iv are from UN 1968).
174
LEVEL-CROSSING. UN and European System
employ this term in contrast to RAILWAY CROSSING or
GRADE CROSSING employed in a variety of nations
including the US.
ROUNDABOUT. A British term for TRAFFIC
CIRCLE or ROTARY. It is an oval or round intersection
with a one-way traffic flow in which vehicles can enter or
leave at conjoined roads without interferring with the flow
of traffic.
PRIORITY ROAD. Major road systems with special
signage at the beginning and ending of roads designated as
priority. This type of road and accompanying are often
associated with the European system.
BUILT-UP AREA. Again, a special designation area
with accompanying signs. And more associated with
European arrangements than in other areas.
BOLLARD. A metal or wood post in or near the
roadway that requires special markings, or is the founda-
tion of such markings.
CARRIAGEWAY. A UN term for one or more traffic
lanes which form a unit and are separated from other lanes
by dividers or other barriers.
v. Political Terms
CONVENTION. This is equivalent to the term
"Treaty." Convention usually has reference to technical or
social matters while treaty refers to political concerns.
Conventions exist between independent states and are
175
subject to international laws.
PROTOCOL. This refers to a document that is added
onto a treaty or convention and which contains technical
material. The UN Convention was a brief, general
document while the Protocol was the actual sign, signal,
and markings document.
176
APPENDIX II
A COMPARATIVE REVIEW OF
INTERNATIONAL ROAD SIGNS 1909-1968
i Introduction
An examination of traffic signs on a case-by-
case study of signs in various international agreements can
be a workable method of study. But such an approach, even
when detailed, fails to illumine the interactions and inter-
relationships of road signs in the 20th century. Road signs
do not remain -- and often do not begin -- within the
boundaries of one international agreement or system of
signs. Rather, the life span of road signs has an organic
quality which spreads beyond a single agreement, nation or
region. Signs influence and affect other systems of signs
and other concepts of safety.
An adequate understanding of the development of
signs requires an approach to signs that includes inter-
connections. Therefore, the chapter-by-chapter examina-
tion of signs in this monograph does not provide a com-
plete notion of traffic signs. International agreements on
signs, studies of the types of signs, review of the kinds of
messages lacks an integrating element and this can lead to
confusion and misconceptions. Hopefully, the accom-
panying chart of this Appendix will provide that needed
integration. The chart outlines signs according to systems,
agreements and classifications of signs beginning with the
first decade of the 20th century and ending with the 1968
UN Conference. Divergencies found among signs will
admittedly make an appearance in the chart as well. This
results in an awkwardness and ungainlessness that cannot
be entirely avoided. Harmonization of sources would blur
distinctiveness and prove to be a very mixed blessing
177
indeed.
Preparation of the chart has been made more
difficult by the titles of various subdivisions of signs that
are not always in agreement. However, there is a
substantial agreement among the specific types of signs
within the various systems. It therefore remains possible to
arrange the signs in logical patterns despite those
differences in titles and sub-titles of sign categories.
It has not proven feasible to include all of the
systems of signs on the chart. Including more systems
would not only have cluttered the chart but also obscured
the attempted comparison of signs. In the lst ed a two-fold
criteria was used to determine which systems to include:
I) whether or not a traffic control devices has had wide-
spread usage; 2) whether or not a system has had
considerable influence on signage in other nations and
regions. Canada was not included though a case could be
made to include it in on the basis of two factors: innovative
ideas (for example, annular rings), and organization of
signs.
The CASATC system of 1950 fulfills the first
criteria. CASATC was based on sign concepts from other
regions and CASATC, in turn, was not only employed in a
variety of African nations but also influenced more
contemporary systems beyond Africa (References are not
included in this Appendix since the reviewed topics are an
extension of subject matters explained in detail elsewhere).
An example of the second criteria can be found in the
"American system" stop sign and danger warning signs.
These signs have been adopted by nations in the Western
Hemisphere and increasingly on a global scale. A system
included in the chart may qualify under both criteria.
178
There are been two very prominent "streams" or
"currents" of signs systems: the "European system" and the
"American system." As noted in the monograph, there are
one or possibly two additional strains: OBS (reflected in
CASATC) and GERSS (encompassing dimensions of the
other systems). However, the first-named have a pre-
eminent role in sign systems especially here. The European
system began on a limited basis in 1909, expanded in 1926
and again in 1931. Further change in the system occurred in
1938 and 1939 though that effort remained incomplete until
UN Protocol 1949. Since the interwoven triad (09-26-31)
underlays the recognizable "European system" of later
years, these are included in a combined column in the chart.
LN 1938-1939 represents an intermediate situation which
requires separate treatment. The 1949 UN Protocol is an
extension and expansion of earlier efforts. It failed to
achieve the hoped-for international official validation
though it continues and develops the European system and
has significance; it is therefore included in the chart.
The "American system," a less cohesive and
comprehensive endeavor, influenced many Western
Hemisphere systems as well as the 1952 UN GERSS draft.
US signs, as found in the 1961 MUTCD, are included in
the chart. The 1961 edition is utilized since it was in force
during the time of preparation of the first edition of the
Inter-American Manual  and the UN 1968 Conference. A
case might be made for inclusion of the 1948 edition of
MUTCD since it formed one base of the GERSS effort.
However, space limitations prevent adding that edition.
Key signs of the 1948 MUTCD are much the same as in
1961 (especially the stop sign, and danger warning signs).
CASATC of 1950, though of more limited
applications, has a three-fold significance: GERSS 1952
179
includes CASATC as a leg of its triadic foundation; it was
employed in traffic signs of Africa; and it extended and
expanded usage of the "Old British System". In addition,
the dual-plate or supplementary plate concept of OBS--
CASATC continues on in the 1968 UN system as on
official option. It is an obvious choice for inclusion in the
chart.
UN GERSS 1952 represents a milestone in TCD
systems as it brought together the best features of major
previous approaches. It never received international
approval but it has been utilized by several sign agencies.
GERSS has influenced later regional and international
efforts including that of the Pan-American Highway
Congresses (Inter-American Manual)  and the TCD manual
of ECAFE.
The titles of divisions of signs, as previously
mentioned, can be a source of confusion. An index of the
title variations is included which may help to reduce some
of the confusion. Danger or Warning signs were termed
"Danger signs" from 1909 to 1949, inclusive, for European
agreements; these became "Danger Warning signs" in
1968. US MUTCD and IAMM describes the same signs as
"Warning signs". CASATC and GERSS both employed
"Danger Warning signs".
The phrase, "Informative signs" is used both in the
1950 CASATC and 1952 UN GERSS documents. A more
cumbersome title, "Signs Giving Indications Only"
describes the same type of sign in 1931. LN 1939 and UN
1949 splits information signs into "Informative Signs Other
Than Parking" and "Signs Providing Useful Information on
Parking." US and IAMM publications use the term "Guide
Signs" instead of Informative Signs "
180
Regulatory signs, because of the various
subcategories, offers additional variants:
1931 -- main heading: Signs Giving Definite
Information
-- sub headings: Signs Prohibiting Passage
Signs Indicating an
Obligation
1939 LN -- main heading: Prohibitory or Mandatory
- sub headings: Prohibitory
Mandatory
1949 UN -- main heading: Signs Giving Definite
Instructions
- sub headings: Prohibitory
Mandatory
1950 CASATC -- unified heading: Prohibitory and
Mandatory
1952 GERSS (and 1961) US -- single heading:
Regulatory
1968 UN - main heading: Regulatory Signs
Other Than Standing
and Parking
- sub headings: Prohibitive or
Restrictive
Mandatory
Priority
181
-- special heading: Standing and
Parking Signs
Explanatory Notes follow the Chart. They provide
information on nuances and various complex matters not
found in the Chart. The Explanatory Notes also supply a
key to abbreviations in the Chart.
ii The Chart
Warning Signs
1909-26-31 1939
Uneven Road 09/31 Uneven Road
Gutter Road 26 Sharp Turn
Sharp Turn 09/31 Single Bend to L, R
Bend 26 Double Bend
Cross-Road 09/26/31 to L, R
Level Crossing 09 Cross-Road
L-C w Barrier 26 Road End in
L-C Guarded 31 Junction w.
L-C Unguarded 26/31 Another Road
Alternative 31
Hollow 26
Other Dangers 31
182
Cross-Road
Road End. in
Junction w.
Another Road
Road in Which
Another Road
Ends at a
Junction
Level-Crossing
w/w.o Gates
Approach to a
School Entrance
Other Dangers
General Danger
Approach to a
Major Road
Stop (Hall)
1949
Uneven Road
Dangerous Bend (s)
Gen., R, L, DRL,
DLR
Road Intersection
Level-Crossing w/w.o
Gates
L-C in the Immediate
Vicinity
Dangerous Hill
Carriageway Narrows
Opening Bridge
Road Works
Slippery Carriagewy
Pedestrian Crossing
Children
Beware of Animals
Intersection w. a
Non-Priority Road
Other Dangers
Priority Road
Ahead
Cross-Road
1950
Crossroads
Gate or Level
Crossing Barrier
Cross-drain or Dip
Gate & Motor Gate
L, R
Motor Gate
Unguarded Level-
Crossing
Level-Crossing
Warning Cross
Level-Crossing
Stop
Dangerous Curve
Dangerous
Junction
Narrow Bridge
Dangerous Fork
C-LC, C-RC,
LC-RC
Danger
Dangerous
T-Junction
183
Dangerous Sharp
Turn, R
Dangerous Steep
Descent to L, R
Road Narrows
Dangerously
Traffic Circle, L, R
Dangerous Reverse
Bend Winding
to R, L
Children
Overhead Bridge
1952
Dangerous Curves
Sh, R, L, Dbl
Road Intersections
Cr Rd, L, R, T, Y
Intersection with a
Minor Rd, or Non-
Priority Road
Cr Rd, L, R, T, Y
Stop Sign Ahead
Priority Road Ahead
Uneven Road
Bump
Dip
Rough Road
Dangerous Hill:
Dangerous Descent
Dangerous Ascent
Road Narrows
Narrow Bridge
Opening Bridge
Road Works
Slippery Road
Pedestrian
Crossing
Children
Beware of
Animals
Low Clearance
Narrow Clearance
Level-Crossing
Level-Crossing
Guarded by Gates
1961 US
Turn
Curve
Reverse Turn
Reverse Curve
Winding Road
Large Arrow,
L, R, Dbl
Cross Road
Side Road, L or R;
45 or 90 degrees
"T" Symbol
"Y" Symbol
Stop Ahead
Yield Ahead
Signal Ahead
Merging Traffic
Pavement-width
Transition
Narrow Bridge
One-lane Bridge
1R4
Divided Highway
Divided Highway Ends
Hill
Bump
Dip Pavement Ends
Soft Shoulder
Slippery When Wet
School
School Crossing
Railroad Advance
Warning
Railroad Cross-
buck
Crossing Signs:
Cross walk, Deer,
Truck, Pedestrian,
Cattle
Double Arrow
Low Clearance
Advisory Speed
Plate
Advisory Exit Speed
Traffic Signal
Speed
Miscellaneous
Warning Signs
1968 UN
Dangerous Bends,
L, R, DBLR, DBLL
Dangerous Descent
Steep Ascent
Carriageway Narrows
Swing Bridge
Road Leads Onto
Quay or River
Bank
Uneven Road
Slippery Road
Loose Gravel
Falling Rocks
Pedestrian
Crossing
Children
Cyclists Enter-
ing or Crossing
Cattle or Other
Animal Cross-
ing: Wild,
Domestic
Road Works
Light Signals
Airfield
Cross-wind
Two-way Traffic
Other Dangers
Cross-roads
Stop Sign Ahead
Yield Sign
Level Crossing
w/w.o. Gates
Tramway Inter-
section
Level Crossing
Immediate
Vicinity
Level Crossing-
Additional Panels
185
Informative Signs
1931
Signs Giving
Indications Only
Authorized Parking
Place
Caution
First-Aid Station
Place
Direction
First-Aid Station
Mechanical Help
Telephone
Filling Station
Priority Road
End of Priority
Advance Direction &
Direction Signs
Place and Route
Indirection Signs
1950 CASATC
1939 LN
Caution Signs
Or Indication Signs
Caution Signs
Caution
Approach to a
School Entrance
Indication Signs
Authorized Parking-
Place
First-Aid Station
Place
Direction
Advance Direction
1949 UN
Indication Signs
Parking
Hospital
Curve
Fork, L & R-C, LC/C
Junction
Sharp Turning To L, R
Steep Winding
Descent, L, R
Road Narrows
"T" Junction
Hospital
First Aid
General
Pedestrian Crossing
Telephone
Filling Station
Service Station
Loading Zone
Rank for Taxis
Parking
Bus Stop
Tram Stop
Second Stage
Major Road Ahead
1 RA
Advance Direction &
Direction Signs
Place and Route
Identification Signs
Direction
Place Names
Descriptive
Route Markers
1952 GERSS
Advance Direction Signs
Direction Signs
Route Markers
Signs Giving General
Information
1961 US
Guide Signs
Route Markers 
Auxiliary Markers
Route Markers
Auxiliary Route
Markers
Confirming &
Reassurance
Route Markers
Junction Marker
Combination Junction
Advance Turn Arrow
Directional Arrow
Directional Assemblies
Alternative Route
Markers
By-Pass Marker
Business Route Marker
Detour Marker
Detour Arrow Sign
Cardinal Direction
Marker
Trailblazers
Di stance & Destination
Signs
Destination
Distance
Street Names
Expressway
Directional
Gore
Exit Direction
One-mile Advance
Two-mile Advance
Next Exit
Informative Signs
Rest  Information
Service
Next Services
Parking Area
Mile Posts
Information
1968 UN
Informative Signs Other
Than Parking Signs
Advance Direction Signs
Direction Signs
Place Identification Signs
187
Confirmatory Signs
Pedestrian Crossing Signs
Other Signs Providing Useful
Information for Drivers of
Vehicles:
Hospital,
One-way Road
No Through Road
Road for Motor Vehicles
Tramway Stop
Road Open or Close-
with Panels
Signs Giving Notice of
Facilities Which May Be
Useful to Road Users:
First-Aid
Miscellaneous
Signs Prohibiting or
Restricting Standing or
Parking
Parking Prohibited
Standing & Parking
Parking
Alternative Parking
Limited Duration &
Parking Zone
Signs Providing Useful
Information on Parking
188
Regulatory Signs
1931
Signs Giving Definite Instructions
Signs Prohibiting Passage
Closed to all Vehicles
One-way Road or Entry
Prohibited
Passage of Certain Classes of
Vehicles Prohibited:
Motor Vehicles Prohibited
Motor Cycles Prohibited
MI Vehicles Prohibited
Weight-limit
MV Weight Over 5.5 Tons
Maximum Speed
Waiting Prohibited
Parking Prohibited
Signs Indicating An Obligation
Direction to be Followed
Stop Near Custom-house
1939
Prohibitory or Mandatory Signs
Prohibitory Signs
Closed to all Vehicles
One-way Road or Entry
Prohibited
MV Prohibited
MC Prohibited
MV (MV, MC) Prohibited
Pedal Cycles Prohibited
Weight-Limit 189
Maximum Width of Vehicles
Maximum Height of Vehicles
Speed Limit
Stop Near Customs Officer
Waiting Prohibited
Stopping Prohibited
Mandatory Signs
Direction to be Taken
Road to be Taken by Cycles
De-restrictions or the Removal ..
1949 UN
Signs Giving Definite Instructions
Prohibitory
Closed to all Vehicles in
Both Directions
No Entry for All Vehicles
Turning to the R or L
Prohibited
Overtaking Prohibited
No Entry for All MV except
MC w/o Sidecars
No Entry for all MV
No Entry for Goods Carrying
Vehicle Exceeding ... Tons
Laden Weight
No Entry for Pedal Cyclists
No Entry for Vehicles Having
Overall Width Exceeding
Metres (. . feet)
One-way
No Entry for Vehicles Having
An Axle Weight Exceeding ... Tons
190
Speed Limit
End of Speed-Limit
No Entry for Vehicles Having
Overall Height Exceeding
. Metres ( .. feet)
No Entry for Vehicles
Exceeding ... Tons
Laden Weight
Stop at Intersections
Stop (Customs)
Restricted Stopping or
Waiting
Waiting on Alternate Sides
Mandatory
Direction to be Followed
Compulsory Cycle Track
Compulsory Minimum Speed
1950 CASATC
Prohibitory & Mandatory Signs
Restriction Notice
No Overtaking
Speed Limit
Stop
Speed Limit Restriction
De-restriction Notice
Level Crossing Stop
No Parking
Stop-signal for
Scholar Patrol
Compulsory Cycle Track
191
No Stopping
1952 UN GERSS
Stop
Direction Prohibited
Turning to the R, L
Prohibited
About-turn (U-Turn)
Prohibited
Overtaking Prohibited
No Entry for Vehicles
Having an Overall Width
Exceeding . Metres
( .. feet)
No Entry for Vehicles
Having an Overall Height
Exceeding ... Metres
(... feet)
No Entry for Vehicles
Exceeding ... Tons
Laden Weight
Speed Limit
Direction to be Followed
Restricted Parking
Parking Prohibited
No Entry for Goods-
Carrying Vehicles
No Entry for MV
No Entry for Bicycles
Horn Blowing Prohibited
1961 US
Stop
Yield
Speed Limit
Special Speed Limit
Night Speed Limit
Minimum Speed
Limit
Speed Zone Ahead
End ... Mile Speed
Turn Prohibited,
R, L, All, U
Lane-use Control
Signs at
Intersections
Do Not Pass
Pass with Care
Slower Traffic Keep
Right
Trucks Use Right
Lane
Truck Lane Feet
Keep Right
Do Not Enter
No Trucks
Trucks Excluded
Commercial Vehicles
Excluded
Pedestrians
Prohibited
One-way
Two-way Traffic Ahead
End-One Way
Parking & Stopping
No Parking on Pavement
No Parking Except on
Shoulder
192
Use of Audible Warning
Devices Prohibited
End of all Local
Prohibitions
End of Speed Limit
End of Prohibition on
Overtaking
Passing w/w.o. Stopping
Prohibited (Customs)
Mandatory Signs
Direction to be Followed
Pass This Side
Compulsory Roundabout
Compulsory Cycle Track
Compulsory Foot Path
Compulsory Track for
Riders on Horseback
Compulsory Minimum
Speed
End of Compulsory
Minimum Speed
Snow Chains Compulsory
Standing & Parkings Signs
Parking Prohibited
Standing & Parking
Prohibited
Alternate Parking
Limited Duration Parking
Zone
193
Walk on Left
Pedestrian Crossing
Keep Off Median
Road Closed ...
Miles Ahead
Local Traffic Only
Weight Limit
1968 UN
Regulatory Signs Other Than
Standing & Parking
Priority Signs
Give Way
Stop
Priority of Road
End of Priority
Priority for Oncoming
Traffic
Priority over Oncoming
Traffic
Prohibitive or Restrictive
No Entry
Closed to all Vehicles
in Both Directions
No Entry for ...
Driving of Vehicles Less
Than ... Metres (... Yards)
Apart Prohibited
No R, (L) Turn
No U-Turns
Overtaking Prohibited
Overtaking by Goods
Vehicles Prohibited
Maximum Speed Limits
1 OA
iii Explanatory Notes
Abbreviations for the Chart include:
w/wo= with, without
L-C= Level-crossing
L= Left
R= Right
Junct. = Junction
DRL= Double Bend, Right
then Left
DLR= Double Bend, Left
then Right
Gen.= General
C-LC=  Center and Left of
Center
C-RC= Center and Right
of Center
Cr.rd= Crossroads
"T"= "7' shaped junction
or intersection
"Y"= "Y" shaped junction
or intersection
Gd.= Guarded or Guard
Trk= Truck (keep?)
Ped.= Pedestrian
"U" ? "U" Turns
MV= Motor Vehicle
MC= Motor Cycle
Max= Maximum
Mki= Marker
R.Mkr= Route Marker
L & R-C= Left and Right of Center
LC/C= Left of Center and Center
195
Warning Signs, 1909-26-31: "Gutter" and "Uneven
Road" are different names for the same symbol. "Bend"
and "Sharp Turn" also represent different names for the
same symbol. The same factor is true of "Level-crossing
09," "L-C Barrier 26," and "L-C Gd. 31." "Alternate" and
"Hollow" signs are additional examples of identical graphic
symbols with different word titles.
Warning Signs, 1939: The Level-crossing designation
contains two signs: one with gates, one with a locomotive
denoting no gates. The "General Danger" sign is the
"Hollow" sign of former agreements. The "Approach to
School Entrance" sign has two versions: one with a
stationary figure, one with a running figure. "Major Road"
sign has a fuller title: "Sign warning drivers of their
approach to a road ranking as a major road in relation to
that on which they are travelling or a road having priority
of passage." The complete title for the "Halt sign" is, "Sign
ordering drivers to halt before entering a road ranking as a
major road in relation to that on which they are travelling
or a road having priority of passage."
Warning Signs, 1949: The "General" designation for
"Dangerous Bend" signs was supplied by the compiler. The
sign is employed when national road agencies elect not to
use a more precise type of indication for hazards. The
"Road Intersection" sign is found at road junctions, cross-
roads and forks. Intersections which contain a roundabout
can be marked by an intersection sign exhibiting a round-
about symbol. "Level-crossing signs-immediate vicinty"
refers to the vicinity of the track. They are marked by a
sign in the form of a Saint Andrew's Cross."
Warning Signs, 1950: The "Dangerous Fork" sign is
196
illustrated in C-LC and LC-RC versions; presumably a C-
RC is also a possibility.
Warning Signs, 1952: The symbols for "Road Inter-
sections" and "Intersections with a Minor Road" are the
same sign except that the Minor Road version exhibits a
narrow road intersecting with the major road. The former
sign exhibits roads of the same width.
Warning Signs, 1961: "Crossing signs" are not a
complete list but instead are those listed as possible types in
MUTCD. That publication also presents possible warning
signs of a miscellaneous nature but these are not in the
chart.
Warning Signs, 1968: "Cross-road," "Stop Sign
Ahead" and "Yield Sign Ahead" are titles not found in
UNCORT. The signs in questin ae described in the "Danger
Warning Signs at Approaches to Intersections" part of the
second Annex but no titles as such are given. The sign titles
attached to those signs are in alignment with those of other
sign systems in which the titles are supplied.
Regulatory Signs, 1931: "All MV" means all MV are
prohibited: The symbol indicates autos and motorcycles
though seemingly trucks are included. The sign that
indicates "MV over 5.5 tons" presumably gives that figure
as an example only; later agreements which employ that
figure use it as an example not as an actual sign.
Regulatory Signs, 1939: "MV prohibition" has the
same symbol as the "All MV" of 1931. "Pedal cycles"
means bicycles in American terms. The "5.5 tons sign"
becomes "Weight Limit" sign. "Waiting Prohibited"
includes signs for general prohibition and selected
197
prohibition (for example, "No Parking on this side on even
days"). The "De-restriction sign" has the full title of "Sign
indicating de-restrictions or the removal of a prohibition
imposed by a previous sign."
Regulatory Signs, 1949: Explanatory Notes did not
seem necessary for this category and system.
Regulatory Signs, 1950: Parking signs included both
general-use and limited-use forms.
Regulatory Signs, 1952: Explanatory Notes did not
seem necessary for this category and system.
Regulatory Signs, 1961: "Special Speed Limits" signs
includes those for trucks and for freeway exits. "All" means
"No Turns" permissable. "Lane-use Control" signs refer to
a variety of signs which exhibit instructions for individual
lanes. "Trucks Excluded," "No Trucks," and "Commercial
Vehicles Excluded" are all examples of the "Selective
Exclusion Signs" segment, and therefore are not standard-
ized signs. Parking and stopping signs include several
versions; these signs are seemingly for urban situations.
The two "No Parking ..." signs are for rural usage.
"Pedestrian Crossings" include several different signs.
Regulatory Signs, 1968: The "Overtaking" sign
includes a general sign and a second version for goods-
vehicles. "No Entry For ..." are those signs for specific
categories of exclusion; there are ten such signs under that
umbrella heading.
Informative Signs, 1931. A variety of these signs
have very long names which have been substantially
shortened for the chart. More modern sign systems have
198
short names similar to those employed in the chart for
1931.
Informative Signs, 1939: "Approach to a School
Entrance" has two forms for that sign. "First Aid" signs
give Christian and Islamic versions.
Informative Signs, 1950: "Fork Sign," LC/C,
presumably has a RC/C version though that is not given.
Informative Signs, 1952: Explanatory Notes
seemingly are not required for GERSS.
Informative Signs, 1961: "Route Markers" is a broad
grouping though the core idea of marking routes by
numbers and key words is to be found in all varieties.
iv Sign Shapes and Color Formats
This last section of Appendix II provides illustrations
of the major forms of sign shapes. It also includes pictorial
representations of symbols for informative, regulatory and
warning signs.
The remainder of this segment presents a synopsis of
the colors employed and the meanings ascribed to them in
major systems of signs present and past.
Since the Appendix serves as an adjunct to the main
body of the monograph the specific sources of the primary
materials apply here. To a considerable degree the contents
of the Appendix functions as a distillate of the previous
materials.
199
Basic Shapes for Signs
200
Other Shapes for Signs
S
Color Code:
Sign Samples 
                       
BL
Y
G
W / LY
BLK                    
.'.'.'.'.'.'.". ....      
201     
Double-Sign Shapes
Li_ 1
2G2
Malmo  .171
L  km
Lund  [42j Herera 2
kmSAN JOSE
3 5
Informative Sign Symbol Sampling
Landskrona  p
LYON + 
203
Tiff ilif
     
111114 1111111
F-1 1 
111                        i
                                                                                                       
Regulatory Sign Symbol Sampling
C:
205
Warning Sign Symbol Sampling
! Z,
206
Guide to Sign Illustrations
Page 200, Basic Sign Shapes: Left column (top to bottom):
Square/Circle [or Disc]/Triangle-one point up [European
system]/Octagon/Triangle-point down/. Right column:
Rectangle-vertical emphasis/Rectangle-horizontal
emphasi s/Pentagon/Pennant/Trappezoid/Diamond
Page 201, Other Shapes: St Andrew's Cross with 1/2 arm
second track/Railroad Crossbuck [American system];
Shields [US practice]
Page 202, Double Sign Formats: OBS and CASATC
Page 203, Informative Signs: Upper Left: Advance
Direction/Upper Right: Confirmatory/Center Left:
Place Identification/Center Right: Pedestrian Crossing/
Lower Left: Direction/Lower Right: Parking
Page 204, Informative (cont'd): Sampling of symbols for
"Signs Giving Notice of Facilities Which May Be Useful
To Road Users"/Sampling of signs for "Signs Providing
Useful Information for Drivers of Vehicles"
Page 205, Regulatory Signs: Upper Half: Prohibitory.
Lower Half: Mandatory (upper), Priority (lower)
Page 205, Warning Signs: Sampling of Symbols
Sources: UN 1968, Draft Convention (1967); 1969 where
noted. US TCD Handbook 1983; US MUTCD 1971;
OBS, CASATC
207
b) Sign Shapes
The shapes of signs for major systems of signs include a
variety of forms. Those for the US (many of these shapes
and meanings are also shaped by many other nations and
systems) include:
Round shape for advance warning signs at railway
crossings.
Diamond shape for warning signs.
Triangle (vertex down) for the "Yield" sign (this sign is
originally a European system sign).
Rectangle (longer dimension horizontal) for many guide
signs.
Rectangle (longer dimension vertical) for nearly all
all regulatory signs.
Octagon for the "Stop" sign.
Penant (triangle with longer dimension horizontal)
for the "No Passing" sign.
Trapezoid for recreational area guide signs (one of two
permitted shapes).
Pentagon for school and advance school crossings.
Shield for route markers.
Crossbuck for railway crossings.
Australia's system of signs is similar to that of the US
though some differences are present. These include: the
circle which is also used for pedestrian signs; the
equilateral triangle (one point up) for specific warning
signs; the rectangle (longer dimension horizontal) for
roadwork (construction) signs, special purpose signs and
for supplementary plates (warning signs).
Canada and the US also share a variety of shapes and
208
meanings, but, again, differences are to be noted. These
include a square-shaped sign for a variety of regulatory
signs and for some tab signs. Rectangles are employed for
other tab signs.
GERSS permitted triangles (one point up) diamonds,
triangles over rectangles, or triangles over diamonds for
warning signs. Regulatory signs, except for the "Stop" sign,
could be either circular or rectangular in shape. Informative
signs were to be rectangular in shape with the added
requirement for direction signs that they be mounted on
rectangles with the longer dimension horizontal. These last
named signs could end in a point. ECAFE closely followed
GERSS except for permitting either a round or octagon
shape for the "Stop" sign. ECAFE allowed only the round
shape for regulatory signs.
IAMM generally follows signage practices found in
the US and in GERSS. IAMM, however, employs only
round-shaped signs for regulatory signs save for the "Stop"
and "Yield" signs.
The "Old British System" used a double approach of
discs mounted above rectangles for many prohibitory and
mandatory signs. In some instances the disc was exhibited
without the rectangle for specific signs. Nearly all warning
and informative signs displayed a triangle over a rectangle
(longer dimension vertical). CASATC practice was similar
to that of OBS in a variety of respects. Triangles placed
over squares or rectangles indicated danger signs. Discs
over triangles marked prohibitory and mandatory signs.
Triangles for danger signs were frequently displayed with
one point up; those for prohibitory functions were
displayed in a reverse arrangement. Informative signs were
similar to warning signs except for the lack of discs.
209
meanings, but, again, differences are to be noted. These
include a square-shaped sign for a variety of regulatory
signs and for some tab signs. Rectangles are employed for
other tab signs.
GERSS permitted triangles (one point up) diamonds,
triangles over rectangles, or triangles over diamonds for
warning signs. Regulatory signs, except for the "Stop" sign,
could be either circular or rectangular in shape. Informative
signs were to be rectangular in shape with the added
requirement for direction signs that they be mounted on
rectangles with the longer dimension horizontal. These last
named signs could end in a point. ECAFE closely followed
GERSS except for permitting either a round or octagon
shape for the "Stop" sign. ECAFE allowed only the round
shape for regulatory signs.
IAMM generally follows signage practices found in
the US and in GERSS. IAMM, however, employs only
round-shaped signs for regulatory signs save for the "Stop"
and "Yield" signs.
The "Old British System" used a double approach of
discs mounted above rectangles for many prohibitory and
mandatory signs. In some instances the disc was exhibited
without the rectangle for specific signs. Nearly all warning
and informative signs displayed a triangle over a rectangle
(longer dimension vertical). CASATC practice was similar
to that of OBS in a variety of respects. Triangles placed
over squares or rectangles indicated danger signs. Discs
over triangles marked prohibitory and mandatory signs.
Triangles for danger signs were frequently displayed with
one point up; those for prohibitory functions were
displayed in a reverse arrangement. Informative signs were
similar to warning signs except for the lack of discs.
209
The UN system permitted either triangles (one point
upwards) or the diamond-shaped sign for danger warning
signs. The "Giveway" sign was a triangle with one point
downwards. The pentagon was employed as an alternate for
pedestrian crossing signs. The diamond-shaped sign was
used for priority and end of priority signs. The square shape
was utilized for the priority over oncoming traffic signs.
Regulatory signs were displayed on circular-shaped
backgrounds.
The circle is also employed for most regulatory signs
in Japan, except pedestrian, "Stop," and "Priority" signs.
Guide signs generally employed rectangles (longer
dimension horizontal). Square-shaped signs are used for
pedestrian signs within the regulatory sign category and for
most signs in the "Indication" sign category (a form of
regulatory sign that is separate in Japan; this type of sign
frequency permits a given action). Warning signs are
diamond in shape. Route markers employ distinctively
shaped shields.
c) Systems Use of Color
Sign colors, beginning again with the US, follow
these formats: Red serves as a ground or background color
for the "Stop" sign, multi-way supplement plates, route
markers for interstate highways and for "Do Not Enter" and
"Wrong Way" signs. It is employed as a legend or symbol
color for "One Way" signs, specific weigh station signs,
and speed limit lights for night usage. It is a message color
for those signs with a white, yellow, or orange ground.
White serves as the ground color for guide and
regulatory signs (save the "Stop" sign), and for route
210
markers. It is the message color for those signs with a
ground color of brown, green, blue, black, or red. Orange
has the single usage of ground color for construction signs.
Yellow is the ground color for warning signs, and for
school signs. Construction warning signs are an exception
to this stricture. Brown is the ground color for recreational
and cultural guide and information signs. Green is the
ground color for guide signs (excepting those with a brown
or white ground) and for mileposts. It is the message color
for "permissive parking regulations" signs with a white
ground. Blue is employed as a ground color for informative
signs that refer to "motorist services."
Australia's color code is similar to that of the US,
though there are noticeable differences. Red finds use in
speed regulations, "special hazard" and railroad crossing
gate signs. It is also the message color for specific
regulatory signs. Black serves as a message color for many
signs of varying ground colors: white, yellow, yellow-
orange, red-orange. It is the ground color for informative
signs of large size, hazard markers, "width markers," "T-
junction sight boards" and such specific signs as the "One
Way" and "Stop on Red Signal."
White serves as ground color for most regulatory and
informative signs. It is also so employed for "National
Route Markers," fingerboards and street name signs. It is
the message color for signs with green, blue, black, red or
brown ground. Yellow serves as a construction sign ground
color in Australia, and also for advisory speed signs and
special purpose signs (in addition to warning signs). Some
construction signs use flourescent yellow-orange as a
ground color.
Green is the color of messages for permissive parking
211
signs. "Standard Green" is the ground color for direction
signs, kilometer plates and those fingerboards that have
messages in reflective materials. "Freeway" green is the
ground color for freeway and freeway quality expressways.
Blue is the ground color for "State Route Markers" and
service signs. Brown serves as ground color for "Tourist
Route Markers" and informative signs."
Canada's color code bears considerable resemblance
to previous remarks (save more specialized comments), but
again, there are some differences. Red is, of course, the
ground color for the "Stop" sign. It is the message color for
all other "Right of Way" control signs of the regulatory
type; it is also the border color for those same signs. White
is the ground color for the previously described signs.
White is the ground color for the previously described
signs. It serves as the message and border color for the
"Stop" sign. White is one of two colors for grounds of
"Road Use Control" signs. It is also the ground color for
miscellaneous regulatory signs. It serves as the message
color (and border color) for the "School Ahead" sign, and
for informative signs (or it is one of the official colors).
And it can also be used for route marker ground color.
Black serves message and border color needs for
regulatory signs of the miscellaneous type. It is also
permitted for those same functions in "Road Use Control"
regulatory signs. Warning signs exhibit message and border
in black, except for the "School Ahead" sign. Yellow is the
ground color for all warning signs, except the "School
Ahead" sign and temporary conditions signs. Orange serves
as ground color for temporary conditions signs. Blue acts as
ground color for the "School Ahead" sign. It is permitted
for usage as a ground color for guide type information
signs, and for route markers. Blue is one of several per-
212
mitted colors for messages and borders for route markers
(in those instances where route markers do not have a
ground of blue).
Green serves as a ground color for guide signs and for
guide signs and for miscellaneous informative signs. It is
among the permitted colors for messages and borders for
route markers. It is also permitted to be used as a ground
color for route markers (though not when the message and
border is green). Annular rings are green in color. Finally,
brown is the ground color for "Off-road Facilities" signs of
an informational nature.
The GERSS color code exhibited this format: yellow
for warning signs and for the "Stop" sign. Black ("or a
similar dark colour") served for symbols and borders for
the "Stop" sign (when present) and for warning signs. More
vague is the format of colors for regulatory signs: GERSS
called for a ground that is light in color and a border that is
darker. Red is recommended for borders and the accom-
panying oblique bar. Informative signs are to have either a
light ground and dark letters or light letters and a dark
ground. White ground and black letters were recom-
mended.
CASATC followed a generally simple color code:
black was employed for nearly all symbols and red served
as the border color of upper signs for both danager and for
prohibitiory and mandatory signs. Yellow was utilized as a
ground color for most lower signs. Oblique bars, where
present, were red in color, as was the ground color for the
"One Way" sign. Advance direction, and direction signs,
and place and route identification signs had black grounds
and white letters.
213
The "Old British System" made heavy usage of red as
a border color for the upper signs. Red was also employed
as a ground color for speed limit, no entry and stop signs
for children crossings. Red was also utilized for no turn
signs and signs for vehicle prohibitions for play streets.
White served as a ground color of lower signs and black
had a similar function for borders and symbols.
IAMM's color code included these components:
white ground for regulatory signs and for guide signs.
White was used for rim and letters of the "Stop" sign and
the ground of the "Yield" sign. Red is used for oblique
circle, the ground of the "Stop" sign and the border of the
"Yield" sign. The first aid symbol is also red. Yellow
serves as the ground color for warning signs. Black is the
border and symbol color or the same signs; this applies to
guide signs as well. Green ground, with white symbols, are
used with high density roads. Blue is the ground color for
"Auxiliary Services" signs; white is the message color for
those signs.
ECAFE is akin to GERSS, though some differences of
a muted sort are to be found. Warning signs can have either
a white or yellow ground with black "or dark colour"
symbols and red borders. Regulatory signs can have one of
three ground colors: white, light yellow or yellow. Borders
for those signs are to be red. The "Stop" sign is yellow in
ground with symbols and bars in black. Informative signs
have a white ground and black symbols.
Japan employs yellow ground for warning signs. Black
is used for warning sign symbols. Green finds use as a
ground color for guide signs on motorways; blue fulfills
that function for other roadways. Blue also serves as
symbol color for prohibitory signs. Prohibitory signs
214
exhibits red on rims and bars. It is also used for the ground
color of the "Stop" sign and the rim of the "Slowdown"
sign. White has multiple uses: the ground color on
prohibitory signs, and the "Slowdown" sign and the symbol
for the "Stop" sign. It is also the symbol color of indication
and mandatory signs; the ground color for both is blue.
The UN system employs white in a broad range of
usages. White is one of two acceptable colors for the
Protocol type warning sign and "Stop" sign. It is also the
ground color (one of two) for prohibitory or restrictive
signs. It is an alternative ground color for mandatory and
informative signs. White is a symbols color for the
"American-type" "Stop" sign and for mandatory signs.
Yellow is ground color for the American style warning sign
and it serves as a ground color option for many of the signs
previously described as having a white ground. Red serves
as the ground color for one "Stop" sign model and it is used
for the oblique bar and rim. It can also provide a rim color
for mandatory signs and parking signs. Black is the rim and
symbol color for the American style warning sign. Black,
or dark blue, is found as a symbol color for many
regulatory signs. Blue is often the ground color for
mandatory signs and for parking signs."
215
NN
BIBLIOGRAPHY
i  Abbreviations for Sources
ACORD MUTCD 1975 Australian Committee on
Road Devices
CASATC 1950 Central and Southern African
Transport Conference 1950
ECMT 1972 European Conference of
Ministers of Transport
G & L Grotterod and Li avaag
IAA/ft1 Pan American Highway
Congresses, interamerican
Manual
ICMV 1909 Convention with Respect
to the International Circulation
of Vehicles
ICRMT 1926 International Convention
Relative to Motor Traffic
LN CERCL/ League of Nations, Committee
LN DCT CERCL of Experts on the  Codification
of Road Law, 1938-1939
LN ECRT 1931 League of Nations, European
Conference on Road Traffic
PAHC Pan American Highway
Congresses
PICHSS Kikura and Matsushita
"Project" PAHC
RDMCS PAHC
UK HADTS United Kingdom, History and
Development of Traffic Signs
UK MOT United Kingdom, Ministry of
Transport
UN 1969 CORSS UN Convention on Road Signs
and Signals, EIConf. 56/17
217
UN 1965 DCRSS UN Draft Convention on Road
Signs and Signals, E/3999
UN 1967 DCRSS UN Draft Convention on Road
Signs and Signals, E/Conf.
56/3
UN 1967 DCRSS-NSG UN Draft Convention on Road
Signs and Signals, Note by
Secretary-General
UN 1968 PSOC-RSS/ UN Proposals, Suggestions,
PSOC-DCRSS and Observations
UN 1968 SC SR 23rd UN Second Committee,
Summary Records of Decisions
Taken at the 23rd Meeting
UN 1969 SR 1-8 UN Summary Records ... 1-8
Plenary Meetings
UN ECAFE 1964 UN Economic Commission for
Asia and the Far East, Code ...
UN ECE 1957 European Agreement on Road
Markings
UN ECE 1973 PORM Protocol on Markings
UN ECE 1977 DCRRSS UN ECE Draft Consolidated
Resolution on Road Signs and
and Signals
UN ECE 1971 EASCRSS UN ECE European Agreement
Supplementing the Convention
on Road Signs and Signals
UN ECE 1995 Amd 1. Amendment 1. Convention
UN 1952 GERSS UN Group of Experts on Road
Signs and Signals, Draft
Convention
US MUTCD 1948, US Manual on Uniform
1961, 1971, 1978, Traffic Control Devices
1988, 2000
218
ii Books, Journals & Reports (Non-Governmental Sources)
Clearman, Brian. 1984. International Traffic Control
Devices. 1st ed. St. Benedict (OR): Mount Angel
Abbey.
 . 1981.  Transportation Markings. [Unified
Edition: Parts A, B, CID, 1st ed.]. Lanham (MD):
University Press of America.
 . 1994, 2003.  Transportation-Markings
General Classification.  St Benedict (OR): MAA.
. 2002. Transportation-Markings: A
Historical Survey, 1750-2000.  St Benedict (OR):
MAA.
. 1998. Transportation-Markings
Database: Traffic Control Devices.  St Benedict (OR):
MAA.
Council on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Canada 1985. Sign  Manual.  Ottawa:
Roads and Transportation Association of Canada
(RTAC).
 . 1976. Uniform Tragic Control Devices for
Canada. Ottawa: RTAC.
Eliot, William C. 1960. Symbology and the Highway of
the World. Traffic Engineering. December.
Evans, Henry K., ed. 1950. Traffic Engineering Handbook.
New Haven (CT): Institute of Traffic Engineering.
2nd ed.
Finnbogason, W.H. 1963. Uniformity of Traffic Control
Devices in Canada.  T.E. August: 23-27, 54.
Fowler, Paul. 1970. Toward Becoming 'JOINTLY
UNIFORM'....  Traffic Engineering. October: 26-29.
Grotterod, Arne and Liavaag, Ove. 1967. The Norwegian
Signing Code. Traffic Engineering. July: 49-53.
Hawkins, H. Gene. 7-1992. Evolution of the MUTCD:
Early for TCDS. ITE Journal.  July: 23-26.
219
 . 8-1992. Evolution of the MUTCD:
Early Editions of the MUTCD.  TIE Journal. August:
17-23.
. 11-1992. Evolution of the MUTCD:
The MUTCD Since World War II.  TIE Journal.
November: 17-23.
 . 1994. New Developments with the
MUTCD Since World War  LIE Journal.
Johnson, A.E., ed. 1965. American Association of State
Highway Officials.
 
 A Story of the Beginnings,
Purposes, Growth, Acitivities and Achievements of
AASHO. Washington, D.C.: American Association
of State Highway Officials.
Kell, James H. 1958. The Development and Application of
Yield Right-of-Way Signs. Berkeley: Institute of
Traffic and Transportation Engineering. (Research
Report # 27).
Kikura, Masami and Matsushita, Katsuji. 1972. Traffic
Signs in Japan. Proceedings: International
Conference on Highway Symbology. Washington,
D.C. : International Road Federation, Federal
Highway Administration.
Krampen, Martin. 1983. Icons of the Road. Semiotica:
Journal of the International Association for Semiotic
Studies.  Special Issue. Volume 43-1/2.
Lay, M.G. 1992.  Ways of the World: A History of the
World's Roads and of the Vehicles That Used Them.
New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press.
Macnee, W.Q. 1960. Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Canada.  Traffic Engineering. August: 18-19, 39-40.
McLendon, Charles. 1983. Letter to writer, February 10.
Mueller, Edward A. 1970. Aspects of the History of
Traffic Signals. Parts I, II.  Traffic Engineering.
July: 17-21; September: 29-34.
Shoe, R.T. 1969. Special Report: A Report on UN
220
Conference on Road Traffic (Commentary by C.W.
Prisk and J.E. Wilson).  Traffic Engineering. May:
16-21.
. 1971. The US Manual and World Uniformity.
Traffic Engineering. May: 16.
Statesmen's Yearbook  1952. New York: Macmillan.
Tripp, Alker. 1950. Road Traffic and its Control. London:
Edward Arnold and Company.
Usborne, T.G. 1967. International Standardization of Road
Traffic Signs.  Traffic Engineering. July: 20-23.
Webster, F.V. and Cobbe, B.M. 1966.  Traffic Signals. Road
Research Laboratory (Road Research Technical Paper
No. 56). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
Van der Nest, Monica D. 1972. Recent Research and
Practice of Symbol Sign Communication in South
Africa. Proceedings, International Conference on
Highway Sign Symbology. Washington, D.C. :
International Road Federation and US DOT, FHA.
Van Vechten, C.T. 1969. Discussion in Zuniga 1969.
Zuniga, Jose. 1969, International Efforts Toward
Uniformity on Road Traffic Signs, Signals, and
Markings. Discussion, C.T. Van Vechten. Highway
Research Record. #  299: 1-14.
iii United Nations Sources:
a) UN Conference on Road Traffic
Vienna, 1968 (and preliminary documents)
United Nations. 1969. Convention on Road Signs and
Signals. E/Conf .56/ 17/ Rev.l.
 1967.  Draft Convention on Road Signs
and Signals. E/Conf .56/ 3.
 1967,  Draft Convention on Road Signs
221
and Signals. Note by the Secretary-General.
E/Conf. 56/ 4.
. 1965. Draft Convention on Road Signs
and Signals. E/ 3999.
. 1968. Proposals, Suggestions and
Observations Concerning the Draft Convention on
Road Signs and Signals.  E/Conf.56/9
. 1968. Second Committee, Summary
Records of Decisions Taken at the 23rd Meeting.
E/Conf.56/C.2/SR 23.
 . 1969. Summary Records of the 1st to the
8th Plenary Meetings. E/Conf 56/SR.1-8.
b) Other UN Publications
United Nations. 1949.  Convention on Road Traffic.
E/Conf 8/47, Geneva.
. 1952. Group of Experts on Road Signs and
Signals. Final Report by the Group of Experts on
Road Signs and Signals to the 6th Session of the
Transport and Communications Commission.
E/CN. 2/119, E/CN.21 /Conf. 1/12. New York.
. 1949. Protocol on Road Signs & Signals.
Geneva.
 . Economic Commission for Asia and the
Far East (ECAFE). 1964.  Code on a Uniform System
of Road Signs and Signals, Pavement Markings, and
Signs forRoad Works in the ECAFE Region. Geneva.
ECAFE. 1969. Convention on Road Signs
and Signals, Convention on Road Traffic.
Transportation and Communications Bulletin for
Asia and the Far East.  #46:51.
222
UN Economic Commission for Europe (ECE). 1995.
Amendment 1. Convention on Road Signs and
Signals. Geneva.
. 1977. Draft Consolidated Resolution on Road
Signs and Signals (R.E.2). Trans/SC 1/R.15/Rev. 1 .
Geneva.
. 1957. European Agreement on Road
Markings.  Geneva.
. 1971. European Agreement Supplementing
the Convention on Road Signs and Signals Open for
Signatures on 8 November, 1968 Done at Geneva on
1 May 1971. Geneva.
. 1973. Protocol on Markings, Additional to
the European Agreement Supplementing the
Convention on Road Signs and Signals Opened.
Signature on 8 November 1968. ECE/Trans/4.
Vienna.
 . 1973. Protocol on Road Markings,
Corrigendum 1. Vienna.
iv Other Government Publications
Australian Committee on Road Devices. 1975. Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Part I, "Description
of and Use of Elemental Traffic Control Devices"
(AS 1742). North Sidney: Standard Association of
Australia.
Central & Southern Africa Transport Conference. 1950.
Final Acts & Related Documents.  Johannesburg:
Provisional Organisation for Central & Southern
African Transport.
Convention with Respect to the International Circulation
ofMotor Vehicles.  1909. Paris. (Cd 5125). London:
HMSO, 1910.
223
European Conference of Ministers of Transport. 1972.
European Rules Concerning Road Traffic Signs,
and Signals. Paris: European Conference of
Ministers of Transport.
Indonesia. ca. 1986. Rambu Lalu-Lintas Terbaru. Jakarta.
International Convention Relative to Motor Traffic.  1926.
Paris. (Cmd 3510, Treaty Series No. 11). London:
His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930).
Ireland. Minister of the Environment. 1979. Rules of the
Road. Dublin.
League of Nations. 1931. European Conference on Road
Traffic. Convention Concerning the Unification of
Road Signals  (C.231 M. 99 1931, VIII, March 16-
30, 1931). Geneva.
Organization for Communication and
Transit, Committee of Experts on the Codification of
Road Law. 1938. Report on the First Session, July 25-
27. (7-29-38, C.C.T./C.D.R.16). Geneva.
. 1938. Report on the First
Session, July 25-27. (8-15-38, C.C.T./C.D.R.14).
Geneva.
. 1938. Draft Report on the
Second Session, 11-21-38.
 .  1939. Report on the Third
Session, March I-1 I . (3-27-39, C.C.T.C./C.D.R./ 12).
Geneva.
 . 1939. Draft Regulations.
(3-27-39, C.T.D./C.T.R.15-1). Geneva.
. ca. 1939. (Table of Illustra-
tations). Geneva.
Norway. 1980. Forskrifier OmOffentlige Traffikkskilt.
Oslo: Vegdirektoratet.
Pan American Highway Congresses. n.d. A Project for
an Interamerican Manual for Traffic Control Devices.
(Handout; ET, Juan Castro).
224
. 1967. Interam erican
Manual: Traffic Control Devices for Streets and
Highways. Washington, D.C.: PAHC.
 . 1981. Revision Del
Manual, Capitulo: Senales.  Mexico City.
. 1968. Technical
Committee on Traffic and Safety of the Pan
American Congresses. Final Report.  4th Meeting,
July 29-August 3. Washington, D.C.: PAHC.
Turkey. 1975.  Trafik Isaretleri Elkitabi. (No. 218). Ankara:
Bakim Dairesi Baskanligi Trafik Fens Heyiti
Mudurlugu.
United Kingdom. ca. 1950. History and Development of
Traffic Signs. (Handout). London: Ministry of
Transport.
 . ca. 1950. British Road Signs. (Broad-
side). London: Ministry of Transport.
United States. Public Roads Administration. 1948.
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Washington, D.C.: GPO.
. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of Public Roads.
1961. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Washington, D.C.: GPO
. Federal Highway Administration, US DOT.
1971, 1978, 1988. Manual on Uniform Traffic
Control Devices.
. Federal Highway Administration, US DOT.
2001. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Washington, D.C.: ATSSA/AASHTOPITE.
225

GENERAL INDEX
Classification, 11, 15, 16, 19,
33, 82, 88, 92, 130
Fourth-digit Problem, 60,
61, 62, 63
Main Classification, 59,
66, 67, 68, 99, 108,
118, 120, 127, 145,
153, 155,
Explanatory Notes 59,
68-74,
General Note, 74, 75
Revisited, 59, 60, 61, 62,
63, 64, 65, 66
Types of Messages, 59,
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65
Variant Classification, 59,
66, 75-79, 108, 111,
155
General Note, 79
Glossary of Terms, 168-176
History
General, 15, 16, 17
General TCD, 80, 81, 82,
83, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92,
93
Traffic Signals, 15, 53, 54,
55, 80, 81, 82, 83, 93
Traffic Markings, 15, 56,
57, 58, 83, 153
Traffic Signs-General, 89
Traffic Signs-Warning,
80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87,
91, 103, 104, 106, 107
Traffic Signs-Informative,
82, 83, 87, 114
Traffic Signs-Regulatory,
80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 87, 91,
126, 127, 128, 129, 130
136, 137
Traffic Signs-Earlier
History
Europe 1909-1931, 17,
18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
23
Old British System,
23, 24, 25
Europe 1938-39,
26, 27, 28, 29,
30, 31, 32, 33, 34
UN 1949, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39
Americas, 40, 41, 42,
43
Africa/Middle East/Asia
& Pacific, 43, 44,
45, 46
CASATC, 46, 47, 48,
49, 50, 51, 52
Messages and Message
Systems
Traffic Signals, 95, 96,
97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
227 102
Traffic Markings, 155, 208, 211, 217
156, 157, 158, 159,
160, 161, 162, 163,
164, 165, 166, 167
Traffic Signs
Informative Signs,
115, 116, 117, 118,
119, 120, 121, 122,
CASATC, 16, 37, 44, 46,
47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53,
55, 57, 103, 114,
127, 152, 178, 179, 180,
182, 183, 184, 186, 187,
191, 196, 197, 198, 199,
207, 208, 209, 211, 213,
217123, 124
Regulatory Signs, 126,
127, 128, 129, 130,
131, 132, 133, 134,
Canadian UTCD, 16, 40,73,
74, 75, 81, 86, 89, 90,
95, 112, 114, 127, 128,
129, 130, 142, 148,135, 136, 137, 138,
139, 140, 141, 142,
143, 144, 145, 146,
147, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152
149, 150, 157
Central America, 1, 81, 87,
92, 106, 112, 116,
128, 131
ECRT 1931, SEE: LNWarning Signs, 104,
ICMV 1909, 15, 16, 17, 18,105, 106, 107, 108,
109, 110, 111, 112, 19, 20, 26, 35, 153,196, 217
113 ECE, 138
Classification of Messages, ECE 1957, 154, 156, 218
60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 ECE 1971, 100, 101, 111,
TCD Systems: 147, 161, 163ECE 1972, 147, 161
General, 15, 53, 55, ECE 1973, 163, 164, 165,
African System, 16, 17, 166, 167, 218
40, 83 ECE 1977, 100, 101, 122,
American System, 16, 40, 123, 147, 218
44, 46, 82, 83, 86, 87, ECE 1995, 113, 154
92, 106, 108, 112, ECAFE, 73, 85, 86, 93,
131, 132, 133, 143, 94, 95, 96, 97, 103, 104,
144, 146, 147, 154, 105, 113, 114, 115, 126,
178, 179, 207, 215 127, 128, 129, 137, 138,
Australia, 107, 152, 155,
228
152, 157, 180, 209, 214,
218
European System, 16, 17,
43, 44, 80, 81, 82, 83,
90, 91, 92, 108, 132,
136, 143, 146, 154,
155, 175, 179
GERSS, 16, 17, 35, 36, 40,
43, 44, 45, 48, 73, 80,
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86,
87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 95,
96, 97, 103, 104, 105,
106, 107, 112, 113,
114, 115, 116, 120,
126, 127, 128, 129,
130, 131, 138, 140,
141, 142, 149, 154,
155, 157, 179, 180,
182, 184, 187, 192,
197, 198, 199, 209,
213, 214, 218
IAMM, 40, 73, 81, 83, 84,
85, 86, 92, 103, 104,
105, 112, 113, 114,
125, 126, 128, 131,
140, 141, 148, 150,
151, 154, 155, 156,
179, 180, 209, 214,
217
ICRMT 1926, 16, 18, 19,
20, 21, 26, 34, 35,
153, 196, 217
International System, 82,
146
Japan, 45, 46, 214
LN 1931, 16, 20, 21, 22,
23, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31,34,
35, 49, 114, 126, 136,137,
153, 182, 189, 197, 198,
217
LN 1939, 16, 26, 27, 28,
29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34,
35, 114, 126, 127, 179,
180, 181, 182, 186, 196,
197, 199, 217,
Nordic, 89, 107
OBS, 17, 23, 24, 25, 44,
45, 48, 57, 58, 83, 88,
104, 106, 179, 180, 207
Pan-American, 43
PIARC, 56
Scandinavia, 81, 92, 106,
128
SEE ALSO: Nordic
US MUTCD, 16, 36, 40,
41, 42, 43, 54, 56, 69,
70, 73, 74, 75, 79, 85,
86, 87, 90, 91, 94, 95,
97, 101, 102, 104, 105,
106, 108, 111, 112, 113,
114, 115, 124, 125, 126,
129, 130, 148, 149, 151,
152, 156, 157, 167, 171,
172, 173, 179, 180, 184,
187, 192, 198, 199, 207,
208, 209, 210, 211, 218
UN 1968, 15, 16, 17, 51,
68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74,
75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 86,
87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94,
229
96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101,
102, 103, 104, 105, 106,
107, 108, 109, 110, 111,
112, 113, 114, 115, 116,
117, 118, 119, 120, 121,
122, 124, 126, 128, 129,
131, 132, 132, 133, 134,
135, 136, 137',138, 139,
140, 141, 142, 143, 144,
145, 146, 147, 148, 149,
151, 152, 153, 154, 155,
158, 159, 160, 161, 162,
163, 165, 166, 170, 171,
173, 177, 179, 180, 182,
185, 187, 188, 194, 197,
198,207, 215, 217, 218
UN 1949, 16, 24, 26, 27,
28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37,
38, 39, 46, 48, 49, 50,
51, 55, 57, 80, 81, 82,
83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89,
90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95,
97, 103, 104, 106, 107,
113, 127, 128, 129, 130,
131, 137, 141, 142, 152,
153, 154, 155, 156, 159,
170, 171, 179, 180, 182,
183,
215
186, 190, 196, 198,
230
INDEX OF NAMES
Australia/Australian, 44, 107,
152, 155, 208, 211, 217
AASHO, 41, 42
Alberta, 90
Argentina, 43, 84, 125, 150,
180
Africa/African, 16, 17, 40,
43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50,
83, 152, 178, 180
American Engineering
Congress, 42, 54, 56
Asia/Asian, 40, 43, 44, 45,
92, 112, 112, 152
American Travel Congress,
40, 43
Americas/American, 16, 40,
43, 44, 46, 82, 83, 84, 85,
86, 87, 92, 93, 103, 106,
107, 108, 111, 112, 113,
129, 131, 132, 143, 144,
146, 147, 152, 178, 179,
207, 215
Angola, 47
Austria, 21
Baltic States, 21
Bangladesh, 44
Bechuanaland Protectorate,
47
Belgium, 21, 47
Belgium Congo, 47
Bogota, 84
Botswana, 47
Brazil, 84
Britain/British, 17, 21, 23,
24, 37, 44, 45, 57,
83, 88, 93, 106, 142,
175
British Columbia, 90
British MOT, 23
British RRB, 141, 142
Burundi, 47
Cameroons, 47
CASATC, 37, 46, 47, 48, 49,
50, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 93,
103, 114, 127, 152, 178,
179, 180, 181, 182, 183,
185, 191, 196, 198, 199,
207, 213, 217
Central Africa, 47
Central African Republic, 47
Central & Southern Africa
Conference,
SEE: CASATC
Canada/Canadian, 14, 16, 40,
73, 74, 75, 81, 86, 89, 90,
95, 112, 127, 128, 129,
130, 142, 148, 149, 150,
151, 157, 171, 172, 173,
178, 209, 212
Cape of Good Hope, 43
CCURS, 21, 28, 31, 49
CEMT, 89
Central America, 81, 87, 92,
106, 112, 116, 128, 131
Chad, 47
Colombia, 83
231
Commonwealth, 88
CRICMV, 17, 18, 153 Europe/European, 15, 16, 17,19, 20, 21, 26, 29, 35, 39,
CRRT, 33 43, 44, 45, 46, 55, 57, 71,
CTG, 26 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 88, 89,
Cuba, 19 90, 91, 92, 93, 100, 101,
CERCL, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 103, 106, 107, 108, 111,
31, 32, 33, 34 113, 116, 122, 123, 130,
Congo, 47 130, 132, 136, 143, 146,
147, 148, 153, 154, 155,Danzig, 21
156, 162, 163, 164, 165,Denmark, 17, 21, 140
166, 172, 175, 179Detroit, 41
Evans, 54
East Africa, 47 Finbogason, 89, 90, 130, 158
East African High Finland, 17, 19
Commission, 47 Fowler, 102, 148
ECAFE, 73, 85, 86, 93, 95, France/French, 19, 20, 21, 47
96, 97, 103, 104, 105,
113, 114, 115, 126, 127,
129, 137, 138, 149, 152,
154, 157, 180, 214, 218
ECE, 86, 89, 113, 122, 123,
126, 138, 147, 154, 155,
156, 162, 163, 164, 165,
166, 167, 218
ECMT, 89, 147, 162, 217
ECOSOC, 83
Ecuador, 150
Egypt, 19, 44, 106
Eliot, 86, 114
English/England, 17, 20, 21,
46, 58, 114, 142, 151,
168, 173
ESCAP, 85, 137
Equatorial Guinea, 47
172, 173
French Equatorial Africa, 47
Gabon, 47
Geneva, 26, 156, 162
German/Germany, 15, 19, 21,
45, 46, 54, 93
Great Britain, 17
GERSS,  1, 16, 27, 36, 40, 43,
44, 45, 48, 73, 80, 81, 82,
83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91,
93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 103,
104, 105, 106, 107, 108,
112, 113, 114, 115, 116,
120, 126, 127, 128, 129,
130, 131, 138, 140, 141,
142, 154, 155, 157, 171,
179, 181, 182, 184, 187,
232
192, 197, 198, 199, 209,
213, 214, 218
Grotterod & Liavag, 89, 106,
116, 127, 217
Group Restraint, 89
Guinea Coast, 47
Guatemala, 84
Hawkins, 54, 56, 102, 112,
115, 149, 157, 167
High Commission for
Basutoland, 47
Ho Chi Minh City, 85
Honduras, 83
HRB, 141
Iceland, 17, 88
ICMV, 217
ICRMT, 19, 20, 217
IMSA, 95, 173
India, 44
Indonesia, 113
International Bank for
Reconstruction &
Development, 47
IPRA, 131, 139
SEE ALSO: PRI
Iran/Iranian, 44, 122
Ireland, 21, 81, 87, 106,
115, 116, 128, 130
HU, 139, 141
Islamic, 132
Italy, 21
ITE, 90
Kell, 28
Kenya, 47
Kikiura & Matsushita, 152,
217
Krampen, 15, 16, 21, 48, 83
Japan/Japanese, 45, 46, 93,
94, 97, 99,100, 140, 152,
210, 214
Johannesburg, 44, 46
Joint Committee, 90
Latin America, 92, 112
Lay, 15, 56
League of Nations, 20, 21,
22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 49, 126,
127, 114, 129, 136, 137,
153, 179, 180, 181, 182,
186, 189, 196, 197, 198,
199, 217
Lesotho, 47
London, 54, 55
McLendon, 14, 174
Macnee, 158
Malawi, 44, 47
Malaya, 44
Manitoba, 90
Mexico/Mexican, 84, 113,
125, 150, 151
Mexico City, 84
Middle East, 40, 43, 44
Minnesota, 41
Montevideo, 84
233
MVASHD, 41
NCSHS/ National Conference
on Streets  Highway
Safety, 42
Netherlands, 21
New Zealand, 44
1909 Conference, 17
1931 Committee, 44
1933 Committee, 23, 24, 57,
58
1944 Committee, 44
Nordic, 89, 127
Nordic Council, 89
Nordic Road Committee,
89
North America/North
American, 35, 43, 45,
74, 82, 100, 157
Norway/Norwegians, 17, 89,
116, 127, 140
North Africa, 44
Northern Rhodesia, 47
Nova Scotia, 90
NRC, 141
Nyasaland Protectorate, 47
OBS, 17, 23, 24, 25, 44, 45,
47, 48, 57, 83, 88, 106,
179, 180, 207, 209, 214
Oklahoma, 130
Ontario, 90
OTA, 139
Ottawa, 90
Pacific, 40, 43, 44, 92, 152
Pakistan, 44
Pan American Highway
Congresses, 40, 43,
83, 140, 180
Pan-American Road
Congress, 43
Pan American Union, 43
PAHC, 42, 83, 84, 85, 140,
141
Paris, 19, 26, 44, 55
Peru, 84
PIARC, 56
Portugal, 47
Quebec, 90
Ruandi Urundi, 47
Rumania, 108
Russia, 17
Rwandi, 47
Saigon, 85
San Carlos de Bariloche, 43
Saskatchewan, 90
Scandinavia, 17, 19, 21, 81,
88, 89, 92, 106, 116, 128
Sessions, 41, 42, 43, 55, 56,
114
Shoal, 36, 102, 148, 167
Siam, 19
South Africa, 152
Southern Africa, 44, 46
Southern Rhodesia, 47
Spanish, 114, 150, 151
234
Spanish Guinea, 47 104, 106, 107, 108, 109,
Sri Lanka, 44 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,
Suez Canal, 43 115, 116, 117, 118, 119,
Sub-Saharan Africa,
44, 92
120, 121, 122, 123, 124,
126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
Swaziland, 47 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
Sweden, 17, 140 136, 137, 138, 139, 140,
Swiss/Switzerland, 19, 21
Tanganiyika, 47
141, 142, 143, 144, 145,
146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
151, 152, 153, 154, 155,
Tanzania, 47 156, 158, 159, 160, 161,
TCC, 82 162, 163, 164, 165, 166,
TCTS, 84, 140, 141 168, 170, 171, 173, 175,
Teguciugapa, 83 176, 177, 179, 180, 182,
Thailand, 19, 44 183, 185, 187, 190, 194,
Tripp, 54, 55 196, 197, 198, 207, 210,
Turkey, 44, 86, 88, 106 215, 217, 218
UNCRT, 26
Uganda, 47 UN ECOSOC, 83
Union of Official Travel UN GERSS: SEE GERSS
Organizations (OTA), Union of South Africa, 47
139 University of Chicago, 13
United Kingdom, 15, 24, 25, Uruguay, 19, 84, 150, 151
30, 45, 47, 48, 54, 57, 81, US, 14, 16, 18, 28, 36, 40,41,
87, 88, 100, 104, 128,
155, 217
42, 43, 47, 51, 54, 56, 58,
68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75,
UK MOT, 48, 88, 217 79, 84, 86, 87, 90, 91, 93,
UN, 14, 15, 16, 17, 26, 28, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,
30, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 43, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106,
44, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 111, 112, 114, 115, 124,
55, 57, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 125, 126, 128, 129, 130,
73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 137, 141, 142, 143, 148,
83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 149, 150, 151, 152, 156,
92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98,
99, 100, 101, 102, 103,
157, 159, 167, 171, 172,
173, 174, 175, 179, 180,
235
181, 182, 184, 197, 198,
199,
211,
207,
218
208, 209, 210,
US Coast Guard, 66
Usborne, 16, 86, 88, 106,
128, 129
USSR, 21, 132, 138
Van der Nest, 152
Van Vechten, 142
Venezuela, 125, 150
Vietnam, 85
Victorian, 57
Washington, D.C., 84
Webster, 54, 57
West-central Africa, 47
West Africa, 47
Western Hemisphere, 16, 42,
79, 81, 82, 83, 85, 94, 95,
97, 101, 140, 148, 154,
178, 179
Winipeg, 90
Worboys, 88
World War I, 19, 57
World War H, 26, 27, 44
Yugoslavia, 21
Zaire, 47
Zambia, 47
Zanzibar, 47
Zuniga, 86, 87, 88, 105, 106,
116, 131, 138, 141, 142
236
un.A. vr  1 1?.1-1.1N rvi AN-FI1 -11/1  i  -I
PHENOMENA
About-turn (U-turn) Sign,
192
Additional Panels, 111
Additional Signs at
Approach to Level
Crossing, 77
Advance Direction &
Direction Signs, 36, 38,
50, 186, 187, 213
Advance Direction Signs,
33, 38, 51, 115, 118,
186, 203, 207
Advance School Crossing
Signs, 208
Advance Turn Arrow, 187
Advance Warning Signs,
111, 208
Advisory Exit Sign, 185
Advisory Speed Plate, 185
Advisory Speed Sign, 211
Aero Lights, 61, 65
Aero Nav Aids, 169
Aids, 53, 54, 56, 60, 61,
62, 80, 96, 154, 155, 156,
157
Aircraft Crossing Signs, 76
Airfield Sign, 185
Airport Direction Signs, 117
Airport Signs, 119
All Lighted Signals, 75
All Motor Vehicles Are
Prohibited Signs, 197
Alphanumeric Markings,
237
68, 73, 98
Alternative Parking Signs,
188, 193
Alternative Route
Marker,  187
Alternate Sign, 181, 196
Animal Crossing Sign, 109,
139
Animal Drawn Vehicles
Sign, 139
Approach to a Major
Road Sign, 183
Approach to a School
Entrance, 183, 186,
196, 199
Arrows, 78, 102, 162, 165
Auto Repair Service Sign,
122
Audible Pedestrian Signals,
68
Audible Warning Devices-
Prohibition, 140
Authorized Parking Place
Sign, 186
Auxiliary Markers, 187
Auxiliary Route Markers,
187
Auxiliary Service Signs,
38, 125, 214
Barricades, 68, 74, 94, 155,
167
Barricades-Portable, 79
Barricades-Permanent, 79
Beacons, 101
Beaconage, 174
Bend Signs, 20, 29, 76, 181,
196
Beware of Animals Signs,
183, 184
Bicycle Prohibitions Sign,
31
Bike Route Sign, 32
Bollard, 52, 55, 175
Border Lines, 165
Built-up Areas Signs (?),
Bump Sign, 185
Buoyage, 174
Bus Lane Signs, 151
Bus Stop Sign, 106
Business Route Marker, 187
Buttons, 58, 161
By-Pass Markers, 187
Campground Signs, 119
Camping Sites, 122, 125
Campsite Signs,
Can Buoy, 169
Cardinal Direction Marker,
187
Car-Sleeper Sign, 123
Carriageway Bollards, 163
Carriageway (Highway)
Narrow Signs, 76, 109,
183
Carriageway Limit Lines, 78
Carriageway Markings, 57,
71, 158, 162, 173
Cats-eye, 58
Cattle Signs, 112
Cattle or Animal Crossing
Signs, 76, 185
Caution/Indication Signs, 34
Caution or Indication Signs,
29, 32, 186
Caution Signs, 23, 32, 33, 34,
114, 186
Center Line Markings/Center-
line Markings, 56, 57,
58, 157, 167
Centerl-lines, 39, 57
Channelizing, 167
Channelizing Devices, 68, 74,
155
Channelizing Devices-Traffic
Cones, 79
Channelizing Devices-Tubular
Makers, 79
Chevron Markigs, 166
Children Crossing Signs, 109
Children Signs, 29, 76, 183,
184, 185, 214
Closed to All Vehicles
Signs, 189
Closed to All Vehicles in
Both Directions, 77, 136,
139
Combination Junction
Signs, 187
Commercial Vehicles
Signs, 192, 198
Compulsory Cycle Track, 78,
191, 193
Compulsory Foot-Path/- Foot
Path, 78, 193
238
Compulsory Minimum Speed,
78, 147, 191, 193
Compulsory Roundabout, 78,
134, 193
Compulsory Snow Chains
Signs, 147
Compulsory Track for Riders
on Horseback Signs, 78,
193
Confirmation Signs, 124
Confirmatory Signs, 117, 119,
123, 188, 203, 207
Confirmatory Direction Sign,
122
Confirming and Reassurance
Route Marker, 187
Construction & Maintenance
Signs, 67, 71, 72, 112
Construction Signs, 106, 211
Construction Warning Signs,
211
Continuous Lines for Particular
Purposes, 78
Continuous Lines for Special
Purposes, 160
Corner Markings, 58
Cross-drain or Dip Sign, 183
Crossing Signs, (Cross Walk,
Deer, Truck, Pedestrian,
Cattle), 185, 196
Cross-roads Notice Board,
Cross Road Signs, 184
Cross-roads Signs, 24, 29,
181, 183, 185, 197
Crossroad Signs, 184
Crosswalk Boundaries, 56
Crosswinds/Cross-winds
Signs, 76, 111, 185
Curb Markings, 156, 157
Curve Markings, 58
Curve Sign, 184, 186
Custom House Sign, 23
Cycle Signals, 100
Cycle Track Sign, 50, 147
Cyclist Crossings Signs,
162, 166
Cyclist Crossings Markings,
78, 163, 166
Cyclists Entering or Crossing
Signs, 76, 185
Cyclist Signals, 66, 70, 98
Cyclists Signs, 109
Danger Signs, 20, 24, 28, 29,
34, 36, 43, 48, 103, 106,
126, 174, 180, 183, 209
"Danger Signals" (=Signs),
19, 20
Danger Signals Replaced
Notice-Boards, 19
Danger Warning Signs, 35,
36, 48, 50, 51, 74, 86, 103,
104, 106, 107, 108, I
126, 131, 143, 170, 174,
178, 180, 210
Danger Warning Sign at
Approach to Intersection,
197
Danger-Warning Signs, 22
Dangerous Bends, 133, 185,
239
186
Dangerous Curves Sign, 183,
184
Dangerous Descent Sign,
185
Dangerous Descent/Steep
Ascent Signs, 108
Dangerous Fork Sign, 183,
196
Dangerous Hill Sign, 183,
184
Dangerous Reverse Bend
Winding to R, L, 184
Dangerous Sharp Turn,
Right, 184
Dangerous Shoulders Signs,
113
Dangerous Steep Descent
to L, R Sign, 184
Dangerous T-Junction Sign,
183
Deflecting Arrows, 165
Delineators, 68, 73, 74, 156
Delineators-Curb, 79
Delineators-Upright, 79
De-Prohibition Sign, 32
Descriptive Signs, 51, 187
De-Restriction Notice
Signs, 191
De-Restriction Signs, 198
De-Restrictions or the
Removal Sign, 190
Designation Signs, 116
Destination Signs, 118, 124,
125, 187
Detour Signs, 123
Descent/Ascent Signs, 76
Detour Ahead Signs, 51
Detour Arrows, 187
Detour Signs, 51
Diagrammatic Signs, 33, 125
Dip Pavement Ends Sign,
185
Dip Signs, 109
Dike Signs, 125
Direction Arrows, 124
Direction Signs, 33, 38, 43,
51, 78, 115, 116,
117, 118, 119, 171, 186,
187, 203, 207, 209,
212, 213
Direction and Destination
Signs, 45
Direction and Distance Signs,
45
Direction of Travel Signs,
32
Direction Prohibited Sign, 192
Direction to be Followed
Signs, 23, 191, 192
Direction to be Taken Sign, 190
Directional Arrows, 119,
187
Directional Assemblies,
187
Directional Regulatory
Information Signs, 41
Directional Signals, 125
Directional Signs, 43, 115,
187
240
Distance Between Vehicles
Signs, 77
Distance Signs, 125, 187
Distance and Direction
Signs, 67, 73
Distance and Destination
Signs, 187
Divided Highway Signs,
185
Divided Highway Ends
Sign, 185
Diversion Sign, 122, 123
Do Not Enter Sign, 148,
192, 210
Do Not Pass Sign, 192
Double Arrow, 185
Double Bend to L, R
Sign, 151
Double-Sign, 24, 29, 37
Drawbridge Signals, 70
Driving of Vehicles Less
Than Metres (...
Yards) Apart
Prohibited Sign, 194
Dual Sign Forms, 45, 83
"E" Road Identifiction Sign,
122
Edge Lines, 157, 167
Edge Markings, 157, 163
Edge Reflectors, 39, 57
Emergency Signals, 67, 70,
93
Emergency Signs,
Emergency Stopping Signs,
149
End .. Mile Speed Sign, 192
End of All Local Prohibitions
Imposed on Motor
Vehicles, 134, 146, 193
End of Compulsory
Minimum Speed, 78, 147,
193
End of Motorways Sign, 121
End of Particular Prohibition
Signs, 78
End of Priority Signs, 38,
133, 144, 186, 193,
209
End of Prohibition of
Overtaking (Passing)
Sign, 146, 193
End of Prohibition or
Restriction Signs, 77, 146
End of Speed Limits Signs,
146, 191, 193
End-One Way Sign, 192
End to Prohibition and
Restriction Signs, 72,
146
Entry Prohibited for
Category of User or
Vehicles, 77
Entry Prohibited for
Several Categories, 77
Entry Prohibited for Vehicles
Whose Weight or
Dimensions Excede
Certain Limits Signs, 77
241
Exit Direction Sign, 187
Exit From a Limited
Duration Parking Zone,
122, 135
Exit Sign, 112
Expressway Signs, 124,
187
Facilities which maybe
useful for road users,
Falling Rocks Sign, 76, 109,
185
Ferry-Boat Landings
Signals, 70, 76, 99
Ferry Sign, 123
Ferry Landing Sign, 125
Filling Station Sign, 186
Fingerboards, 211
First-Aid Signs, 33, 122,
186, 188, 189
First-Aid Station Signs,
33, 186
Flash Lights, 55
Flashing Arrows, 102
Flashing Beacons, 66, 68, 70,
75, 98, 99, 101, 173
Flashing Lights, 95, 98, 99
Flashing Signals, 95, 99, 102
Flashing Warning Beacons,
76
Foot Path Signs, 147
Fork Sign, 186, 199
Freeway Signs, 124
Gate and Motor Gate L, R,
Sign, 183
Gate or Level Crossing
Barrier, 183
General Danger Sign,
196
General Information Signs,
125
General No Entry Sign,
General Signs, 186
General Speed Limit Signs,
123
Give Way Sign, 133, 143
194, 200
Goods Vehicles Prohibited
Signs,
Gore Signs, 187
Graphic Markings, 67, 73,
78
Guidance Signs, 45
Guide Lines, 165
Guide Lines for Turning
Vehicles, 78, 161
Guide Signs, 45, 46, 75,
114, 115, 124, 125, 141,
180, 208, 210, 211, 213,
214
Gutter Signs, 20, 181, 196
Halt Sign, 196
Hazard Markers, 155, 156,
211
Hazard Markings,
Hazardous Corners Signs,
24
242
Hill Signs, 184, 185
Hollow Signs, 20, 29, 30,
,37, 181, 196
Horizontal Markings, 67, 73,
78, 155
Horn Blowing Prohibited
Sign, 192
Horseback Rider Path Signs,
147
Hospital Signs, 38, 51, 120,
186, 188
Hotel Sign, 125
Hump Signs, 109
Indication Signs, 32, 33, 34,
36, 38, 46, 50, 114, 152,
210, 215
Informacion Signs, 114
Information Signs, 50, 87,
187,212
Informational Signs, 114
Informative Signs, 22, 32,
36, 38, 50, 51, 67, 72,
74, 75, 84, 103, 114,
115, 116, 117, 118,
122, 125, 143, 174,
180, 186, 187, 198,
199, 203, 204, 207,
209, 211, 212, 213,
215
Informative Signs Other
Than Parking Signs, 116,
117, 180
Informative Signs Other
Than Priority & Parking
Signs, 117
Informatory Signs, 76
In-Roadway Lights, 76
Intersection Control
Beacon, 75
Instruction Signs, 45, 46
Interaction of Vehicles
with Other Moving
Objects Signs, 71
Intersection w. a Minor
Road, 197
Intersecton w. a Minor
Road or Non-Priority
Road, 184
Intersection w. a Non-
Priority Road, 183
Intermittent Moving Hazards
Signs, 67, 76, 109
Intermittent Moving
Object Signs, 71
Intersection Signs, 67,
71, 108, 109
Islands & Other
Devices, 155
Keep Left Signs, 52
Keep-Off/Keep Off
Median Signs,
130, 194
Keep Right Sign, 149,
192
Kerb Markers, 155
Kilometer Plate, 212
Junction Markers, 187
243
Junction Markings, 58
Lane Control/Lane-Control
Signals, 54, 102
Lane-direction Control
Signals, 96
Lane Lines, 56
Lane Markings, 39, 57, 58
Lane-selection Arrow
Markings, 166
Lane-Use Control Signals,
66, 70
Lane-Use Control Signs,
198
Lane-Use Control Signs
at Intersections, 192
Lane-Use Signs, 130
Large Arrow, 184
Left Turn Signs, 149
Level-Crossing Additional
Panels, 185
Level-Crossing Barrier,
196
Level-Crossing Guarded,
181, 196
Level Crossing
Immediate Vicinity,
185
Level-Crossing in the
Immediate Vicinity,
183, 196
Level-Crossing Notice-
Board
Level Crossing Signs, 57,
196
Level-Crossing Signs, 33,
181
Level-Crossing Signs with
Barrier, 20, 181
Level-Crossing Stop Sign,
52, 57, 183, 191
Level-Crossings
Unguarded, 20, 181
Level-Crossing Warning
Cross, 183
Level-Crossing with Gates
Signs, 28, 110, 183, 185
Level-Crossing without
Gates Signs, 28, 109
Level (Grade) Crossing
Signs, 29, 108
Level/Grade Crossing Signs,
67, 110
Level (Railway) Crossing
Signals, 66, 70, 72, 93,
95, 98, 101
Light Signals, 185
Light Traffic Signals
Lighted Devices, 169
Lighted Signals, 172
Lighted Signs, 94
Lighted Traffic Signals,
21, 61
Lighting Devices, 67, 70, 76
Lights, 66
Limited Duration and
Parking Zone Sign, 188
Limited Duration Parking
Zone Signs, 193
Lines, 164, 166
94t1
Loading Zone Signs, 186
Local Traffic Sign, 130, 194
Lodging Signs, 122
Longitudinal Lines/Longitudi-
nal-Lines, 157, 161, 163,
164
Longitudinal Markings, 67,
73, 78, 155, 156, 159,
160, 163, 164, 165, 167,
Loose Gravel Sign, 76, 109,
185
Low Clearance Sign, 184,
185
Low-flying Aircraft Sign,
111
Low-flying Aircraft Signals,
70, 76, 99, 111
Maintenance Signs,
Major Road Ahead Signs, 51,
186
Major Road Signs, 196
Mandatory Signs, 25, 32, 38,
49, 67, 72, 75, 78, 127,
134, 138, 141, 142, 146,
147, 149, 152, 181, 190,
191, 193, 215
Marine Aids to Navigation,
62, 63, 169
Marine Lights, 61, 65, 73
Markers, 41, 124
Markings (General), 59, 60,
62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 71,
155, 169, 170
Markings (Traffic), 22, 42,
53, 73, 154, 156, 158,
159, 161, 162, 163, 165,
167, 176
Markings for Particular
Situations, 165
Markings of Obstructions,
166
Maximum Speed Limits
Signs, 22, 146, 148,
189, 194
Maximum Height of
Vehicles, 190
Maximum Width of
Vehicles Sign, 190
Mechanical Help Signs,
186
Merging Traffic Sign, 106
Mile/Kilometer Posts, 125
Mileposts/Mile Posts, 39, 67,
211
Minimum Speed Limit
Sign, 192
Minimum Speed Sign, 130
Miscellaneous Control Signs,
127
Miscellaneous Informative
Signs, 213
Miscellaneous Regulatory
Signs, 212
Miscellaneous Signs, 72, 188
Miscellaneous Signals, 67, 70,
76
Miscellaneous Symbol Signs,
122
Miscellaneous Warning Signs,
245
185
Motor-Bus Sign, 33
Motor Gate Sign, 183
Motor Vehicles (Motor
Vehicles, Motor
Cycles) Prohibited
Signs, 189
Motor Vehicles Pro-
hibited Sign, 197
Motor Vehicle Signals
Motor Vehicle Weight
Over 5.5 Tons Sign,
189, 197
Motorist Service Sign, 211
Motorway Signs, 121
Mountain Road Sign System,
115
Movable Bridge Signals, 66,
68, 70, 99
Multiple-Direction
Markings, 67, 73, 78
Multi-Way Supplement
Plate, 210
Narrow Bridge Sign, 183
Narrow Road Ahead Sign
National Route Marker, 211
Next Exit Sign, 187
Next Service Sign, 187
Night Speed Limit Sign, 192
No-Cycling Sign, 141d
No Entry for All Motor
Vehicles Sign, 190
No Entry for All Motor-
Vehicles Except Motor-
Cycles W/O Sidecars
Signs, 190
No Entry for Bicycles Signs,
192
No Entry For ... Signs, 194,
198
No Entry for Goods-Carrying
Vehicles Signs, 192
No Entry for Goods Carrying
Vehicles Exceeding ...
Tons Laden Weight
Signs, 190, 192
No Entry for Motor Vehicles
Signs, 192
No Entry for Pedal Cyclists,
Signs, 190
No Entry for Power Drawn
Vehicles Sign, 139
No Entry for all Vehicles
Signs, 37, 190
No Entry for Vehicles Having
an Axle Weight Exceed-
ing ... Tons Signs, 190
No Entry for Vehicles Having
Overall Height Exceeding
.. Metres (... feet), 191,
192
No Entry for Vehicles Having
Overall Width Exceeding
Metres (... feet) Signs,
190, 192
No Entry for Vehicles
Exceeding ... Tons Laden
Weight Sign, 191
No Entry Sign, 77, 133,
246
136, 139, 145, 152,
194, 214
No Left/Right Turns
Signs, 136, 140,
141, 145, 148, 194
No Overtaking Signs, 191
No Parking .. " Sign, 198
No Parking Except on
Shoulders Sign, 192
No Parking on Pavement,
Signs, 192
No Parking on This Side
on Even Days Sign, 198
No Parking Signs, 31, 50,
191
No-Passing Markings,
Signs, 56, 157
No Passing Signs, 137,
208
No Passing Zone Signs,
112, 149
No Stopping Signs, 49, 50,
192
Notice-Boards, 18, 19
No Through Road Sign,
117, 120, 188
No Trucks Signs, 148,
192, 198
No Turn Signs, 145, 149,
198
No U Turn Signs, 140, 145,
148, 194
Non-Flashing Lights, 99, 100
Non-Flashing Signals, 99
Non-Flashing Traffic Signals
Non-Sign Markings, 174
Nun Buoy, 169
Object Markings, 68, 71, 74,
156
Objects-Adjacent to Roadway,
79
Objects-End of Roadway, 79
Objects-within Roadway, 78
Oblique Crossings
Oblique Parallel Lines, 73, 78,
164, 166
Obstacle Markings, 74
Obstruction Markings, 74, 78,
161, 162, 166
Off-Road Facilities Sign, 212
One-Lane Bridge Sign, 184
One-Mile Advance Sign, 187
One-Way Road Signs, 22, 124,
188
One-Way Road or Entry
Prohibited Sign, 189
One-Way Signs, 50, 130, 137,
190, 192, 210, 211, 213
One-Way Transition Signs,
130
Opening Bridge Sign, 183,
184
Other Dangers Signs, 30, 37,
67, 71, 72, 110, 181, 183,
185
Other Markings, 155, 156,
157, 166
Other Moving Objects Signs,
Other Signs, 37, 127
247
Other Signs Providing Useful
Information for Drivers of
Vehicles, 118, 188
Overtaking by Goods Vehicle
Prohibited Signs, 77, 134,
145, 194
Overtaking Prohibited Signs,
77, 134, 137, 190, 192,
194
Overtaking Signs, 32, 198
Parking and Stopping Signs,
148, 192
Parking and Waiting
Prohibition Signs, 22, 23,
137
Parking Areas Signs, 124
187
Parking Lines, 162
Parking Markings, 157
Parking Prohibited Signs,
122, 137, 188, 189, 193
Parking Restricted Signs,
158
Parking Signs, 23, 31, 33, 49,
51, 122, 135, 149, 186,
188, 203, 207, 215
Partially-Lighted TCDs, 67
Pass With Care Sign, 130,
192
Pass This Side, 78, 134, 193
Passage of Certain Classes of
Vehicle Prohibiton Signs
(MV, MC, All V.), 189
Passing Markings, 167
Passing Signs, 72
Passing W/WO Stopping
Prohibited (Customs)
Signs, 193
Pavement Edge Lines, 56
Pavement Marks, 156
Pavement Markings, 17, 20,
39, 42, 56, 57, 58, 71, 90,
103, 154, 155, 156, 157,
159, 162, 165, 173
Pavement-width Sign, 106
Pedal Cycles Prohibited
Signs, 189, 197
Pedestrian Crossing Signs, 76,
109, 112, 117, 118, 183,
184, 185, 186, 188, 194,
198, 203, 207, 211
Pedestrian Crossing Control
Sign, 127
Pedestrian Crossing-
Markings, 57, 166
Pedestrian Lines, 78
Pedestrian Markings, 161
Pedestrian Prohibited Signs,
149, 192
Pedestrian Signs, 120
Pedestrian Signals, 54, 66,
69, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100,
101, 102
Periodic One-Way Signs, 130
Permissive Parking Signs,
211, 212
PermissiveParking Regulatory
Signs, 211
Petroleum Signs, 122
Picnic Goods Signs, 122
248
Pictorial Signs,
Physical Conditions Signs, 75
Place Identification Signs,
117, 119, 203, 209
Place Names Signs, 51, 116
187
Place Signs, 186
Place and Direction
Signs, 22
Place & Route Identification
Signs, 33, 36, 39, 50, 51,
186, 187, 213
Pre-Selection Signs, 117
Prevention Signs, 104
Priority for Oncoming
Traffic Signs, 194
Priority of Passage Signs, 30
Priority of Road Signs, 194
Priority of Road Ahead
Signs, 184
Priority Over Oncoming
Traffic Signs, 194
Priority Road Signs, 33, 37,
38, 133, 144
Priority Signs, 51, 67, 72, 75,
127, 132, 143, 144, 152,
181, 186, 194, 209, 210
Priority Signs at Intersections,
132, 143, 144
Priority Signs on Narrow
Sections of Roads, 144
Programmable Markings, 66
Prohibition and Restrictive
Signs, 67
Prohibition of Parking
Signs, 49
Prohibition of Passing
Without Stopping Signs,
77, 146,
Prohibition of Turning Signs,
77
Prohibition of the Use of
Audible Warning
Devices, 146
Prohibition Signs, 22, 135,
145
Prohibition of Overtaking
(Or Passing) Signs, 134,
145
Prohibitive Signs, 152
Prohibitive and Restrictive
Signs, 127
Prohibition and Restriction
of Entry Signals, 135
Prohibitory or Restrictive
Signs, 77, 143, 144
Prohibitive or Restrictive
Signs, 181, 194, 215
Prohibitive or Restricting
Standing & Parking
Sign, 78
Prohibitive with Flashlight
sign, 52, 55
Prohibitory and Mandatory
Signs, 25, 29, 30, 34, 49,
51, 126 [both have sign],
127, 128, 143, 191, 209,
213
Prohibitory or Restrictive
Signs, 72,
249
Prohibitory or Mandatory
Signs, 34, 126, 181,
189
Prohibitory or Restrictive
Signs, 77
Prohibitory Signs, 24, 25, 31,
45, 46, 49, 50, 72, 75,
145, 146, 149, 181,
189, 190, 214
Quay Signs, 109
Rail Signals, 65
Raised Pavement
Markers 155
Railway Crossbuck Signs,
41, 149, 185, 201, 207,
208
Railway Crossing Signals,
70
Railway Crossing Grade
Signs, 211
Railway Crossings Signs, 41
Railway (Level/Grade)
Crossing Sign, 77
Railway Signals, 169
Railway Signs, 169
Ramp-Control Signals,
67, 70, 102
Ramp Speed Limit Sign,
112
Rank for Taxi Signs, 186
Recreational and Cultural
Guide and Informational
Signs, 211
Recreational Area Guide
Signs, 208
Recreational Areas
Service Signs, 124
Reflective Buttons,
Reflective Devices
Reflectors, 39, 57
Reflector Markers, 156
Reflective Markers, 159
Regulation Ahead Sign,
75
Regulatory Signs, 22, 36, 45,
46, 67, 72, 74, 75, 76,
77, 84, 87, 103, 114, 122,
126, 127, 128, 129, 130,
131, 132, 136, 138, 140,
141, 142, 143, 147, 149,
150, 151, 152, 174, 181,
189, 198, 205, 207, 208,
209, 210, 211, 212, 214,
215
Regulatory Signs Other Than
Priority, Standing &
Parking, 133, 193
Regulatory Signs Other
Than Priority, Stopping
& Parking, 133
Regulatory Signs Other
Than Standing & Parking,
126, 132, 181, 194
Rest and Information Signs,
Signs, 187
Rest Signs, 124
Restaurant Signs, 122, 125
Restricted Parking Sign, 192
250
Restricted Stopping Signs,
37
Restricted Stopping and
Waiting Signs, 191
Restriction Markings,
Restriction Signs, 43, 191
Reverse Curve Signs, 184
Reverse Turn Signs, 184
Reversible Flow Sign, 130
Ridge Sign, 109
Right-of-Control Sign, 127
Right of Way, 212
Right Turn Sign, 149
Riverbanks Signs, 109
Road Closed Signs, 51
Road Closed Miles
Ahead, 194
Road Closed to All
Vehicles Signs, 22, 33
Road Direction
Confirmation Signs,
123
Road Diversion (Detour)
Signs, 105
Road Edge Markings, 57
Road End in Junction W.
Another Road, 181, 183
Road for Motor Vehicles
Sign, 121, 188
Road Guide Signs,
Road Identification Signs, 73,
119, 123
Road in Which Another Road
Ends at a Junction, 183
Road Intersection Sign, 183,
184, 196, 197
Road Leading Onto Quay or
River Bank Signs, 76,
185
Road Markers, 41, 57
Road Markings, 21, 47,
71, 103, 153, 154, 156,
157, 158, 159, 161, 167
Road Names Signs,
Road Narrows Dangerously
Signs, 184
Road Narrows Signs, 130,
184, 186
Road Open or Closed Signs,
121, 188
Road Signals, 17, 21, 47,
48, 65, 81, 82, 122,
135, 147, 154
"Road Signals" (Signs),
21
Road Signs, 17, 20, 23, 24,
27, 29, 34, 44, 47, 48,
65, 81, 82, 85, 122, 135,
147, 153, 154, 159, 177
Road Surface Markings, 154,
158,173
Road to be Taken by Cycles,
190
Road Use Control Signs, 75,
127, 212
Road Works, 183, 184, 185
Roadwork (Construction)
Signs, 208
Roadway Alignment Signs,
67, 71, 74, 75, 76, 108
251
Roadway & Environment
Signs,
Roadway & Environs Signs,
71, 74
Roadway Conditions Signs,
67, 71, 72, 76, 108
Robots, 52, 55
Roundabout Signs, 113, 147
Route Identification Signs,
123
Route Markers, 39, 41, 51,
67, 73, 115, 124, 125,
187, 195, 199, 208,
210, 212, 213
Rule of the Road Signs, 105
Safety Aids, 97, 155, 173,
174
Saint Andrew' s Cross, 201,
207
Sanitary Facilities Signs, 125
School Ahead Sign, 212
School Crossing Signs, 185,
208
School Entrances Signs, 30
School Sign, 185, 211
Scenic Signs, 124
Second Stage Sign, 186
Selective Exclusion Sign, 198
Service Signs, 124, 125, 185,
212
Sharp Bend Signs, 29
Sharp Turning Sign, 186
Sharp Turns Notice-Boards,
Sharp Turns Signs, 20, 196
252
177, 178, 179, 180, 198,
208, 209, 210, 212
Signs and Markings, 76
Signs at Railway/Level Crossings,
27, 28
Signs for Intersections
72
Signs for Narrow Sections
of Roads, 72
Signs Giving Definite
Information, 126,
181
Signs Giving Definite
Instructions, 22, 30, 36,
37, 127, 181, 189, 190
Signs Giving General
Information, 115, 120,
121, 186, 187
Signs Giving Indications
Only, 23, 114, 180
Signs Giving Notice of
Facilities Which May be
Useful for Road Users,
73, 121, 188, 204, 207
Signs Indicating an
Obligation, 23. 126,
181
Signs of General
Information, 120
Signs of General Interest,
67, 73
Signs of Preparation, 84
Signs of Standardization, 84
Signs of Warning, 103
Signs Prohibiting or
Restricting Standing
and Parking, 188
Signs Prohibiting Passage
Signs, 126, 136, 181,
189
Signs Providing Useful
Information, 122
Signs Providing Useful
Information for
Drivers of Vehicles, 73
120, 180, 204, 207
Signs Providing Useful
Information on Parking,
188
Signs to be Placed in the
Immediate Vicinity of
Level Crossings, 77
Signs with Single Forms, 68
Signs with Variant Forms,
68
Single Bend Signs, 29
Single Forms , 72
Slippery Road Signs, 76,
184
Slow Warning Signs, 41
Slower Traffic Keep Right
Sign, 130, 192
Snow Chains Compulsory
Sign, 78, 193
Sound Traffic Signals, 68
Special Identification of
Route Signs, 39
Special Signals, 66, 69
Special Traffic Signals, 99
Speed Limit Beacons, 75
253
Speed Limits Signs, 72, 49, 66, 86, 87, 91,
77, 122, 146, 150, 107, 111, 118, 127,
190, 191, 192, 210,
214
128,
133,
129,
143,
131,
147,
132,
148,
Speed-Limits Signs, 32 149, 151, 152, 161,
Speed Regulation Signs,
151, 211
170,
192,
172,
194,
178,
208,
191,
209,
Standard Signals, 66, 69
Standard Traffic Signals,
210,
215
212, 213, 214,
69, 70
Standing and Parking
Markings, 73, 155
Standing and Parking
Regulations Markings,
159
Standing and Parking
Signs, 67, 72, 73,
114, 122, 127, 134,
143, 181, 188, 193
Steady-Burning Electric
Lamps, 67, 76
Steep Grades Sign, 24
Stop at Intersections Signs,
191
Stop (Customs) Sign, 91
Stop  Go Signs, 51
Stop Lines, 58, 78, 156,
161, 166
Stop-lines, 56
Stop Near Customs
Officier Sign, 190
Stop on Red Sign, 211
Stop-Signal for Scholar
Patrol, 191
Stop Signs, 37, 39, 41,
Stop Sign Ahead, 184,
185, 190, 197
Stop Sign Beacon, 75
Stopping & Parkings
Markings
Stopping and Parking
Signs, 134
Stopping & Parking
Regulations (?)
Stopping & Signals (?),
Stopping Prohibited Sign,
190
Street Names Signs, 124,
125, 187, 211
Surface & Above-Surface
Non Sign Markers, 155
Surface Markings, 56, 71,
73, 79, 154, 157,
Swing Bridge Signs, 76,
109, 185
Swingbridge Signals, 70
Switch Signals, 63
"T" Symbol Sign, 184
Tab Signs, 209
TCD, 15, 16, 17, 26, 40, 42,
25,4
39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 48, 53,
56, 59, 70, 71, 75, 79, 80,
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87,
88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 94, 95,
103, 104, 105, 106, 111,
112, 114, 116, 127, 128,
129, 130, 150, 152, 154,
169, 170, 172, 174, 178
180
Telephone Signs, 122
Temporary Conditions
Signs, 186, 212,
Temporary Road Signs, 51
Temporary Warning Signs
for Construction, 71
Temporary Warning Signs
for Construction and
Maintenance Signs, 71,
72
T-Junction Sight Board, 211
T-Junction Sign, 186
Tourist Information Office
Sign, 123
Tourist Signs, 122
Tow Trucks, 125
Trackside Signals, 62, 63
Traffic Aids, 53
Traffic Beacons, 68, 70,
99, 100, 172, 173
Traffic Circle, L, R, 184
Traffic Congestions Signs,
113
Traffic Control Signals,
66, 95
Traffic Lane Markings, 56,
78, 160, 164
Traffic Light Signals, 134
Traffic Light Signs, 52,
55, 94
Traffic Markings, 15, 42, 53
54, 56, 57, 71, 79, 80, 81,
83, 95, 153, 154, 155,
158, 159,162, 170, 172,
173
Traffic Signals, 15, 21, 39
42, 45, 51, 53, 54, 55, 60,
61,63, 66, 68, 69, 70, 75,
79, 80, 81, 83, 93, 94, 95,
96, 97, 98, 99, 169, 172,
173
Traffic Signs, 15, 18, 19, 27,
39, 42, 44, 45, 53, 54, 60,
61, 62, 65, 79, 80, 81, 83,
93, 95, 169, 170, 173,
177, 180
Trailblazer, 187
Trains Signs,123, 147
Tram Stop, 186
Tramway Signs, 110, 118,
125, 147
Transverse Markings, 67, 73,
78, 155, 156, 157, 159,
160, 166,
Trolley-Bus Signs, 33
Trolley Signs, 147
Truck Excluded Signs, 192,
198
Truck Lane Feet, 192
Truck Route Signs, 150
Truck Use Right Lane Signs,
255
192
Turning Movements Signs,
156
Turn Prohibition Signs, 149
Turn Signs, 66, 72, 184
Turning Prohibited Signs,
37, 192
Turning to the Right/Left
Prohibited Sign, 137,
190, 192
Two-mile Advance Sign,
187
Two-Part Signs, 44, 48
Two-way Traffic Signs, 76,
77, 111, 185, 192
Uneven Road Signs, 20, 76,
181, 183, 196
Uneven Road (Bump, Dip,
Rough Road) Sign, 184,
185
Unguarded Level-Crossing
Sign, 183
Unitary Markings, 65
Unlighted Aids, 71
Unlighted TCD Signs &
Markings, 67
Unlighted Traffic Signs and
Traffic Markings, 70
U-Turns Signs, 130
Unlighted Signs, 76, 172
Unlighted Markings, 71
Uphill Traffic Sign, 130
Use of Audible Warning
Devices Prohibited Signs,
77, 193
Vehicle Prohibited for Play
Street, 214
Vertical Markings, 68, 73,
74, 78, 79, 193
Visual Aids, 71
Waiting on Alternate Sides
Signs, 191
Waiting Prohibited Signs, 23,
49, 189, 190, 197
Waiting Prohibition Signs
Waiting Signs, 31, 37, 137
Walk on Left Sign, 194
Warning & Informative
Signs, 25
Warning Beacons, 75
Warning Cross Signs, 52,
57
Warning for Intersection
Signs, 109
Warning Lights, 67, 76
Warning Lines, 165
Warning of Intersections
with Tramway Line Signs,
77
Warning of Level Crossing
with Gates or Half-Gates
Signs, 77
Warning of Other Level
Crossings Signs, 77
Warning Signs, 24, 36, 39, 40,
45, 46, 50, 62, 67, 71, 74,
75, 76, 77, 84, 86, 87, 91,
103, 104, 105, 106, 107,
108, 109, 110, 111, 112,
113, 114, 115, 116, 126,
130, 147, 149, 170, 174,
180, 181, 196,205, 207,
208,
213,
209,
214,
210,
215
211, 212,
Warning Signs At Approach
to Intersections Signs, 71
Warning Signs-Sharp Bends,
64
Weigh Station Sign, 210
Weight-Limit/Weight Limit
Signs, 189, 194, 197
Weight Sign, 31
Width Markers, 211
Winding Road Sign, 184
Word Markings, 78, 162, 167
Wrong Way Sign, 210
"Y" Symbol Sign, 184
Yield Ahead Signs, 106, 184
Yield Right of Way at
Intersection Sign, 133
Yield Lines. 78, 161
Yield Right of Way Sign, 131
Yield Signs, 28, 51, 127, 130,
143, 148, 151, 152, 185,
192, 208, 209, 214
Yield Sign Ahead, 119
Youth Hostel Sign, 119
Zebra Crossing, 156
257