this post was submitted on 03 May 2025
914 points (96.8% liked)
Fuck Cars
11475 readers
1425 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It does?!
With the wide circle that would normally be red it means no bikes beyond this point in Europe and most of the world
well, that's very counterintuitive for someone from south america. I'd read it as a sign to communicate the presence of bikes to car drivers.
Warning/Attention signs have a triangle shape:
Poor design. If you were colour blind, that sign would be very confusing. It needs a line through it.
For example, these signs all mean not to do something, and anyone should be able to figure that out:
Everybody from Europe would get the (un?)intended meaning of the sign in the cartoon (biking prohibited) and it's black and white. It just needs to be taught once.
No it wouldn't. That border shape only exists in red for prohibitions. Even if you were colour blind you could see the border. There is no other sign you could mix it up with.
The strikethrough is in use for a different purpose, to cancel a previous sign (i.e. end of the bike lane).
There is a reason it's red though, so it stands out. You might not have the time/attention available to clock if the sign has a circle around it if you're color blind. You see a circle sign with a bike. You have to look extra hard to see there's another (possibly faint to you) circle on the sign.
That said, I'm not colorblind and forget exactly how that works so maybe the circle actually looks black to them or something.
Why would color blind people struggle with this sign? There are no similar looking signs which mean something different.
The closest one would be this one:
And any color blind person is able to distinguish those two easily.
I see how it can be confusing for someone not used to it but for anyone who grew up in a country where this is the default it is perfectly understandable.
Accessibility needs to be universal. There may not be other signs like that in a particular city or country, but the rest of the world uses a line through "do not" signs.
Even a child could understand what it means, compared to different random coloured edge markings. And that's exactly the point.
your defaultism is showing. In fact most of the world uses a white sign with red border to mean a prohibition.
and in fact children need to be taught what traffic signs mean all over the world, they don't magically know it
That's crazy.
Like, this sign means maximum speed limit, not "don't go 20"...
To me, it's illogical.
Like, how on earth would the right be better than the left in explaining that bikes are not allowed?
The use of a red border needs to be consistent, if it were to mean prohibition. Yet, it's not 🧐
The thick line on the left covers up part of the bike, making the sign overall harder to read.
Also, the red border on the 20 does make sense, as it's a speed prohibition on going over 20.
Oh good point about color blindess. I never thought about that.
We go through all the trouble of making signage without language barriers and still can't communicate, it's ridiculous. I would 100% misunderstand European signs in a quick moment even knowing what they should mean, because I have to unlearn 40 years of sign instinct.
Yet you can understand a red light, even without a strike through. Europeans just consistently transferred the principle. A crossed out sign means the regulation ends there, which is extremely intuitive.
same for Europeans in America, we would think all your bike lanes are forbidden for bikes