IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
IMPROVER Impact Assessment of Road Safety Measures for Vehicles and Road Equipment
Appendix C
Subproject 4
Harmonisation of road signs and road marking on the TERN from a safety point of view
INTERNAL DELIVERABLE REPORT WP 4.1b Data Collection and Analysis at a National Level
VTT Technical Research Center,
Finland
with the following partners: • BASt Federal Highway Research Institute, Germany • IS-V Ingenieurbüro Siegener, Germany • KTI Institute for Transport Sciences Ltd., Hungary • LCPC Laboratoire Central des Ponts et Chaussées, France • TIS Consultores em Transportes Inovacao e Sistemas, Portugal • TRL Transport Research Laboratory Limited, United Kingdom IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
INTERNAL DELIVERABLE REPORT
TRL Limited
IMPROVER: Tasks 4.1.2 and 4.1.3: Data Collection and Analysis at a National Level
Version: 2
by T. Horberry and J. Mitchell, TRL
(With assistance from G. Coe, J. Rutter, A. Rogers and S. Thompson)
Contract No.: TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Approvals
Project Manager Dr T. Horberry
Quality Dr A. Stevens Reviewed
This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a Contract placed by DG-TREN through BASt. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of DG-TREN or BASt.
TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.
2 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
CIRCULATION LIST
Initially copies have been sent to the other IMPROVER (WP 4) partners: 1. BASt (contract holder with DG TREN) 2. VTT (overall coordinator of WP 4) 3. IS-V 4. KTI 5. LCPC 6. TIS 7. TRL
3 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Executive Summary
This Work Package developed, collected data and analysed four questionnaires concerning different aspects of traffic signing and road markings. The questionnaires focused on the following areas: standard traffic signs, direction signs, road markings and institutional scenarios of traffic signs. The aim of the four questionnaires was to uncover essential points of signing from the 25 EU countries. Data were collected for 19 of the 25 EU countries.
Following data collection, the four questionnaires for each country were coded and initially analysed by one of the partners (TRL), then given to the other partners for additional comment. The results are presented in a structured way with tables and diagrams used where possible to show the signs and markings used in the different countries for comparable situations.
Overall the results of the Work Package showed that there are many areas where traffic signs and markings vary between different EU countries. These include: the use of road studs, and widths of road marking lines, some aspects of Standard traffic signs (for example, when they were last revised), the colours, positions and designs of directional signs leading to different types of junctions and institutional policies and procedures with respect to traffic signs (for example, the penalties imposed for inappropriate implementation of signs).
However, the official representatives from most countries pointed out that the costs and potential safety disbenefits of traffic sign harmonisation might be very high. As such, extreme care should be taken in proposing wholesale harmonisation in many traffic signs, or policies concerning traffic signs.
Based on the results presented here, and the review of literature being undertaken in parallel, members of the project team will identify key areas where harmonisation might be desirable, and will then quantify the costs associated with such possible changes.
4 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Contents
Executive Summary...... 4
1. Method...... 6 1.1. Questionnaires...... 6 1.2. Procedure ...... 6
2. Results...... 7 2.1. Standard traffic signs ...... 7 2.2. Direction signs ...... 83 2.3. Road markings...... 126 2.4. Institutional scenarios ...... 196
3. Conclusions ...... 244
5 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
1. Method 1.1. Questionnaires Four questionnaires (standard traffic signs, direction signs, road markings and institutional scenarios) were developed by the project partners. These are shown in the Appendix.
1.2. Procedure The partners identified the appropriate official representatives from each of the 25 States. The questionnaires were either given to these representatives to complete, or the partners completed as much of the material as possible from other sources then the draft answers were confirmed by the States.
Following data collection, the four questionnaires for each country that gave a response were coded by TRL. Thereafter, data analysis was undertaken by TRL. This analysis was then given to the other partners for extra analyses and comment. Finally, TRL added this additional information from the other partners and produced the report. Figure 1 shows the data collection and analysis process.
Data collected from the 25 EU states and given to TRL
TRL coded all the data and undertook the initial analysis.
Initial analysis given to the other partners for additional comment
TRL added obtained information from the other partners
Report produced for WP 4.1.2 and 4.1.3.
Figure 1: Data collection and analysis process for tasks 4.1.2 and 4.1.3
6 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2. Results
Results are presented for each of the four questionnaires separately. Within each questionnaire, the questions asked and the answers obtained are shown.
2.1. Standard traffic signs For this questionnaire, responses were obtained from 17 of the 25 countries that were contacted. In the case of no response having been received the column in the table has been left blank.
2.1.1. Is the sign shown part of your official traffic sign collection (symbol/character need not be identical, but similar)?
Table 1 shows the responses of each country to each of the traffic signs listed in the left-hand column. Listed in each category below are some of the significant results which have been highlighted.
o Danger warning signs (category A) – Sign A7c , only 6 of 17 responding countries (35%) listed this sign as part of their official traffic sign collection. Of the countries that responded, only six used this sign, these included Cyprus, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain.
The responses for Sign A8 , recorded that only 10 of 17 countries (59%) utilised this sign. Those countries that do not use this sign include; Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland and the Netherlands.
o Priority signs (category B) – both signs B3 and B4 recorded utilisation of 15 of 17 countries (88%) and in both cases it was the UK and Ireland that do not use these particular signs.
o Prohibitory or restrictive signs (category C) – sign C4b recorded just 6 of 17 countries (35%) utilising this particular sign. Only Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Portugal and Sweden use this sign as part of their traffic sign collection.
o Mandatory signs (category D) – sign D10a recorded just 5 of 17 countries (29%) utilising this sign, that is just five of the countries that responded (including Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary & Latvia).
o Special regulation signs (category E) - both signs E11a and b recorded low usage with 5 of 17 (29%) and 4 of 17 (24%) countries respectively utilising these signs.
o Indication signs (category G) – signs G18 ,G19 and G22a-c
recorded low usage with just 5 of 17 (29%) countries using G18 and only 6 of 17 countries (35%) using G19 and G22a-c.
7 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
o Additional panels (category H) – of this group of signs, sign H9 recorded the lowest usage with 11 of 17 countries (65%) using this sign. Of the countries that did not use this sign the reason for this could be due to climatic factors for some countries, but there were others that did not use this particular sign despite suffering the relevant climatic conditions.
o The total utilisation of signs was reviewed for each country. This identified an interesting finding; the average utilisation for the 17 countries was 82%, yet Ireland recorded a percentage utilisation of just 42%. Therefore the Irish were only utilising half of the signs from the Vienna Convention in their traffic sign collection when compared to the other countries that responded to the questionnaire. The results for the Irish response were also split by category type and this revealed that category G - indication signs recorded the lowest ‘Yes’ response with just 14%. The highest ‘Yes’ response for all categories was for category A – danger warning signs, which recorded 76% of responses as ‘Yes’.
8 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 1 – Official traffic sign collection, response by country and by sign
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question A1a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A1c
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A2a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A3a
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A4a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A4b
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A5 N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 82%
9 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question
A6
N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A7a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A7b
N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 76% A7c
N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y Y N N 35% A8
N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y 59% A9
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A11a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 94%
10 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question A12a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A13
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A14
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A15b
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A16
Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A17a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A18a
Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 82% A19a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 94%
11 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question A22
Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% A23
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A24
N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 76% A25
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 94% A26a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A27
N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 76% A28a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% A29a-c Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88%
12 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question
A30
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A31
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A32
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% B1
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% B2a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% B3
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% B4
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88%
13 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question B5
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% B6
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C1a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C2
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% C3a
Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 71% C3b
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% C3c
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% C3d
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 76%
14 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question C3e
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C3f
Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N 47% C3g
Y N N N Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y Y N N N 47% C3h
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 82% C3l
N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 65% C4a
Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 76% C4b
N Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N N Y N Y N 35% C5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94%
15 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question
C6
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% C7
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% C8
Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 82% C9
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C10
N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N 65% C11a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C12
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
16 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question C13aa
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% C13ba
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 82% C14
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% C15
Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N N N N Y Y N N 41% C16
Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 82% C17a
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N 76% C17b
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N 82% C17c Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88%
17 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question
C17d
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 82% D1a(1)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% D1a(2)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% D1a(3)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% D1a(4)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% D2
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% D3
N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 82%
18 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question D4
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% D5
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% D7
Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y 71% D8
Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y 71% D9
Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N 53% D10a
N N N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N N N N N 29% D11a
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y 76% D11b
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y 76%
19 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question E3a
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 82% E3b Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N 65% E4
N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N 65% E5a
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 88% E5b
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 88% E6a
Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 76% E6b
Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 76% E11a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 29%
20 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question E11b
N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N 24% E12a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% E14a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% G11b
Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y 65% G12a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 76% G14
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 82% G17
N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 53% G18 N N N Y N Y N N N Y N N N N N Y Y 29%
21 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 1 Question
G19
N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y 35% G22a-c
N N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 35% H1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% H2 Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N 76% H8
Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 82% H9 Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y 65%
22 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.1.2. Does the sign have the same meaning or obligation in your country?
Table 2 shows the responses of each country to each of the traffic signs listed in the left-hand column. Listed in each category below are some of the significant results that have been highlighted. o Danger warning signs (category A) – sign A7c and A8 were the two signs in category A that recorded the lowest ‘Yes’ responses, with just 6 of 17 (35%) and 10 of 17 (59%) of countries respectively using the same meaning.
o Priority signs (category B) – for this group of signs it was Ireland and the UK that made up six out of the total of eight ‘No’ responses.
o Prohibitory or restrictive signs (category C) – sign C4b recorded the lowest ‘Y’ response with just 6 of 17 (35%) responding ‘Yes’. Those that were recorded not using the same meaning for this sign included; Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Spain and the UK.
o Mandatory signs (category D) – sign D10a recorded a ‘Yes’ response of 5 of 17 countries (29%). The only countries to use the same meaning were Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary and Latvia.
o Special regulation signs (category E) – signs E11a and b recorded the lowest ‘Yes’ response with just 5 of 17 (29%) and 4 of 17 (24%) respectively responding ‘Yes’.
o Indication signs (category G) – signs G18 , G19 and G22a-c
recorded the lowest ‘Yes’ response with 5 of 17 countries (29%) responding ‘Yes’ for G18 and 6 of 17 countries (35%) responding ‘Yes’ for G19 and G22a-c.
o Additional panels – sign H9 recorded the lowest ‘Yes’ response (10 of 17 countries- 59%), those that responded ‘No’ were: Cyprus, Finland, France, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands and Sweden.
o The meaning/obligation of the signs was reviewed by country. This identified an interesting finding in that the average meaning agreement for the responding countries was 80%, yet Ireland recorded a meaning agreement of just 43%. Therefore only just over half the number of signs had the same meaning compared to the other countries that responded to the questionnaire. The results for the Irish response were also split by category type and this revealed that category G - indication signs recorded the lowest ‘Yes’ response with just 14%. The highest ‘Yes’ response for all categories was for category A – danger warning signs, which recorded 79% of responses as ‘Yes’.
23 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 2 – Same meaning or obligation in your country, response by country and by sign
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question A1a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A1c
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A2a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A3a
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A4a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A4b
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94%
24 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question A5
N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y 76% A6
N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A7a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y 94% A7b
N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y 71% A7c
N N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y Y N N 35% A8
N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y N Y Y Y Y 59% A9
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A11a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 94%
25 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question
A12a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A13
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A14
Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% A15b
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A16
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A17a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A18a
Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 76% A19a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 94%
26 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question
A22
Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% A23
Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% A24
N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y 71% A25
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A26a
Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% A27
N N Y N Y N Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 65% A28a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 82% A29a-c Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 82%
27 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question
A30
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A31
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% A32
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% B1
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% B2a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% B3
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% B4
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88%
28 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question B5
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 88% B6
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y 88% C1a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C2
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y 88% C3a
Y Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 65% C3b
Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 82% C3c
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% C3d
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y Y Y N 71%
29 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question C3e
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C3f
Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N 47% C3g
Y N N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N N N 41% C3h
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y Y Y 76% C3l
N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 65% C4a
Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 71% C4b
N Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N N Y N Y N 35% C5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88%
30 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question
C6
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C7
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% C8
Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 82% C9
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C10
N N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N 65% C11a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% C12
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100%
31 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question C13aa
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% C13ba
Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N 65% C14
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% C15
Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N N N N Y Y N N 41% C16
Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 76% C17a
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N 76% C17b
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N 82% C17c Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88%
32 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question
C17d
Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N 71% D1a(1)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% D1a(2)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% D1a(3)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N 94% D1a(4)
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% D2
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% D3
N N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 76%
33 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question D4
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% D5
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 88% D7
Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y 71% D8
Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y 71% D9
Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N 53% D10a
N N N N Y N Y N Y Y N Y N N N N N 29% D11a
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y 71% D11b
Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y 71%
34 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question E3a
Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 82% E3b Y N Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N 59% E4
N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N 71% E5a
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 88% E5b
Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 88% E6a
Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 76% E6b
Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N 76% E11a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 29%
35 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question E11b
N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y Y N N 24% E12a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 88% E14a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 100% G11b
Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y 65% G12a
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 76% G14
Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 82% G17
N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 53% G18 N N N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N Y Y 29%
36 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F E S A B P D H M LT PL LV NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 2 Question
G19
N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N N Y Y N Y 35% G22a-c
N N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y 35% H1 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 94% H2 Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y 82% H8
Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 82% H9 Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y 59%
37 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.1.3. Do you use another sign looking differently from the one shown but with the same meaning?
Table 3 shows the responses of each country to each of the traffic signs listed in the left-hand column. Listed in each category below are some of the significant results that have been highlighted.
o Danger warning signs (category A) – signs A12 , A16
and A17a recorded the highest number of ‘Yes’ responses, 5 of 17 countries (29%) responded ‘Yes’ for all three. This indicated that these signs had the highest number of variations across the countries that responded.
o Prohibitory/restrictive signs (category C) – C4a recorded the highest number of ‘Yes’ responses, 8 of 17 countries (47%) gave ‘Yes’ responses.
o Mandatory signs (category D) – sign D10a recorded the highest ‘Yes’ response in this category with 3 of 17 countries (18%) responding ‘Yes’. These were France, Germany and Spain.
o Special regulation signs (category E) – signs E4 , E5a ,
and b , E6a and b all recorded a ‘Yes’ response of 4 of the 17 countries (24%). However the responses were not consistent and differed across the countries that responded.
o Indication signs (category G) – sign G11b recorded a ‘Yes’ response of 5 of the 17 countries (29%) but this response differed dependent on the country. o Additional panels (category H) sign H9 recorded a ‘Yes’ response of 5 of 17 countries (29%); those countries that responded ‘Yes’ were Belgium, Finland, Netherlands, Portugal and the UK.
38 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 3 – Do you use another sign which has the same meaning, response by country and by sign
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question A1a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A1c
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A2a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A3a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A4a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18%
39 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question A4b
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A5
N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N 12% A6
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A7a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A7b
N N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N N N N N N 24% A7c
N N N N N Y N Y Y N Y N N N N N N 24% A8
N N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N 18% A9 N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18%
40 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
A11a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A12a
N N N N N N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y N 29% A13
N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N Y N 24% A14
N N N N N N N Y Y N Y N N N N Y N 24% A15b
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A16
N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N Y N Y N 29% A17a N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N Y N Y N 29%
41 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
A18a
N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N 12% A19a
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A22
N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N Y N 24% A23
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A24
N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N 12% A25
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A26a N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18%
42 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
A27
N N N N N N Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N 24% A28a
N Y N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y N 29% A29a-c
N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N Y N 18% A30
N N N N N N N N Y N Y N N N N Y N 18% A31
N N N N N N Y N Y N Y N N N N Y N 24% A32
N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N 12% B1 N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N 12%
43 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
B2a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% B3
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% B4
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% B5
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6% B6
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6% C1a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6% C2 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6%
44 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
C3a
Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y Y 35% C3b
Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N Y Y 35% C3c
Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y Y 41% C3d
Y Y N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N Y N 29% C3e
Y Y N N N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Y Y 41% C3f
Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Y N 18% C3g Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N Y 24%
45 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
C3h
Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N N N Y N Y Y 41% C3l
N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N Y N 18% C4a
Y Y N N N N Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y 47% C4b
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N Y N 18% C5
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y 12% C6
N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y Y 18% C7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6%
46 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
C8
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6% C9
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y 12% C10
N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N 12% C11a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6% C12
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6% C13aa
N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N 12% C13ba
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 6%
47 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question C14
N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N Y N 12% C15
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% C16
N Y N N N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N 18% C17a
Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N N 12% C17b
Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N N Y 18% C17c
Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N N N N Y N 24% C17d
Y N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N Y N 18% D1a(1) N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6%
48 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
D1a(2)
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6% D1a(3)
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N 12% D1a(4)
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N 12% D2
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6% D3
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N 12% D4
N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N 6% D5
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0%
49 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question D7
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% D8
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% D9
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% D10a
N N N N N N Y Y N N N N N N Y N N 18% D11a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% D11b
Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y 12% E3a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N 6% E3b Y N N Y N N N Y N N N N N N N N N 18%
50 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question E4
N N N N Y N Y N N N Y N N Y N N N 24% E5a
N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N 24% E5b
N N Y Y N N N Y N N N N N N N Y N 24% E6a
N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N 24% E6b
N Y N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N 24% E11a
N N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N N N Y 18% E11b
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% E12a N N N N N N N Y N N N N N N N N Y 12%
51 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
E14a
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6% G11b
N N N Y N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y N N 18% G12a
N N N N N N N Y N N Y N N N N Y Y 12% G14
Y N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N 18% G17
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 29% G18
N N N N Y N N N N N Y Y N N N N Y 18% G19 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 12%
52 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 3 Question
G22a-c
N N N N N N N N N N Y N N N N N Y 18% H1 N Y N Y N N N N N N N N N N N Y N 29% H2 N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y 18% H8
N Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y 12% H9
N Y N N N Y N N N N N N Y Y N N Y 18%
53 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.1.4. Does the sign belong to the same sign category in your country?
Table 4 shows the responses of each country to each of the traffic signs listed in the left-hand column. Listed in each category below are some of the significant results which have been highlighted.
o Danger warning signs (category A) – A7c , only 5 of 17 countries (29%) responded ‘Yes’ that this sign was in the same sign category. This was the lowest ‘Yes’ response in category A.
o Priority signs (category B) – signs B1 , B2a and B5 , only 7 of 17 countries (41%) responded ‘Yes’ that these signs were in the same sign category. Again this was the lowest response in category B.
o Prohibitory or restrictive signs (category C) – C3f and C15 just 3 of 17 countries (18%) responded ‘Yes’ that these signs were in the same sign category. Those that stated that sign C3f were in the same sign category were: Hungary, Portugal and Sweden. For sign C15, the countries who stated that this sign was in the same sign category were Estonia, Latvia and the Netherlands.
o Mandatory signs (category D) – both signs D9 and D10a just 4 of 17 countries (24%) gave ‘Yes’ responses.
o Speed regulation signs (category E) – signs E11a and b no countries (0%) gave the ‘Yes’ response; therefore none of the countries that responded had either of these 2 signs in the prescribed category.
o Indication signs (category G) – G22a-c only 1 of 17 countries recorded a ‘Yes’ response (6%). This country was the UK. o Additional panels (category H) – H9 just 5 of 17 countries (29%) recorded a ‘Yes’ response.
o The sign categories were reviewed for each country. This identified an interesting finding in that the average percentage of the number of the 17 countries that responded ‘Yes’ to using a different sign was 52%, yet Austria reported that just 2% of signs were in the same category. The accuracy of the Austrian answers to this question is uncertain. The results for the Austrian response were also split by category type and this revealed that category B – priority or restrictive was the only category to record any ‘Yes’ responses, however only 33% within this category. All other categories recorded 0% for ‘Yes’ responses.
54 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 4 – Does the sign belong to the same sign category, response by country and by sign
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question A1a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76% A1c
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76% A2a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76% A3a
N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% A4a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76%
55 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question A4b
N Y N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% A5
N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y 65% A6
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76% A7a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76% A7b
N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 65% A7c
N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N N Y N Y N 29% A8
N N N Y Y Y N N Y N N N N Y N Y Y 41% A9 N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76%
56 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
A11a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y 71% A12a
N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% A13
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 76% A14
N Y N Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% A15b
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82% A16
N Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 71% A17a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82%
57 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question A18a
N N N N Y Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y N 53% A19a
N N N Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y 53% A22
N N N Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y Y 59% A23
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82% A24
N N N Y Y Y N Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y Y 59% A25
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82% A26a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82% A27 N Y N N Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 65%
58 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
A28a
N Y N Y Y Y N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 65% A29a-c
N N N Y Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N Y Y N 47% A30
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82% A31
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y 82% A32
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y 76% B1
N Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y N N 41% B2a N Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N Y Y Y N N 41%
59 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
B3
N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N N 47% B4
N Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N Y Y Y N N 47% B5
Y Y N Y Y Y N N N N N N N Y Y N N 41% B6
Y Y N Y Y Y N Y N N N N N Y Y N N 47% C1a
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 65% C2
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% C3a
N Y N Y Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 47%
60 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question C3b
N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 53% C3c
N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 53% C3d
N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 53% C3e
N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 59% C3f
N N N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N 18% C3g
N N N N Y Y Y N N N N N Y Y N N Y 35% C3h
N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N 53% C3l N N N Y Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N 47%
61 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
C4a
N Y N Y N Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 53% C4b
N Y N N N N N N N Y N N N Y N Y N 24% C5
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 65% C6
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% C7
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 65% C8
N N N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N 53% C9 N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N 59%
62 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
C10
N N N N Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N Y N 41% C11a
N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 65% C12
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% C13aa
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% C13ba
N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N 53% C14
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y N Y Y 65% C15
N N N N Y N Y N N N N N N Y N N N 18%
63 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question C16
N N N N Y Y Y N N Y N N Y Y N Y N 41% C17a
N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N N N 47% C17b
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y 53% C17c
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N 65% C17d
N Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N 53% D1a(1)
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% D1a(2)
N Y N Y Y Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 65% D1a(3) N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71%
64 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
D1a(4)
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N 59% D2
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% D3
N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y Y N Y Y 59% D4
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y N Y Y 71% D5
N Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y N 59% D7
N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y 41% D8
N N N Y Y N Y Y N Y N N N Y N N Y 41%
65 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question D9
N N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N Y N N N 24% D10a
N N N N Y N Y N N Y N N N N Y N N 24% D11a
N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N 47% D11b
N Y N Y Y Y N Y N Y N N N Y N Y N 47% E3a
N N N Y N N Y N N N N N Y N N N N 18% E3b N N N Y N Y N N N N N N Y N N Y N 24% E4
N N N Y N N Y N N N N N N N N N N 12% E5a
N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y N N Y N 41%
66 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question E5b
N N Y Y N Y Y N N N Y N Y N N Y Y 47% E6a
N N N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y N 29% E6b
N N N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y N 29% E11a
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% E11b
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0% E12a
N N N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y N 29% E14a
N Y N Y N Y Y N N N N N Y N N Y N 35% G11b N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y Y Y N 29%
67 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question
G12a
N N N N N Y N N N N N Y Y Y N Y N 29% G14
N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N Y N 24% G17
N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N Y N 24% G18
N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N N N Y N 18% G19
N N N N N N Y N N N N N N Y N N N 12% G22a-c
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Y 6% H1 N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y N 59%
68 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country
I L F V E S P A B D H M LT PL L NL SK CZ UK CY DK GR FIN IRE % Y % Y EST SLO Question 4 Question H2 N N N N Y Y Y Y Y N N N Y Y N N Y 47% H8
N N N N Y Y Y N Y N N N Y Y N N Y 41% H9 N N N Y Y N N Y Y N N N N Y N N N 29%
69 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.1.5. Do you have other danger warning signs, priority signs, prohibitory or restrictive signs, mandatory signs, special regulation signs, indication signs except those given from the Vienna Convention (excluding additional panels)?
Of the 17 countries that responded, 11 had additional signs. Most of those countries provided additional information on these signs, a summary of which is contained in Table 5.
Table 5 - Examples of traffic signs used additionally in each country to those used in the Vienna convention
Country Traffic sign
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
Reindeer No entry for motor sledge France Germany
Risk of snow No driving in Use hard or ice case of smog shoulder Substitute route for or in order to motorway traffic reduce air pollution
Greece
Loose chippings No audible signals Maximum speed limit per lane
70 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Traffic sign
Hungary
ROAD CLOSED No entry for Parking (Road closed buses house by police)
Ireland Italy Latvia
Change of road Use of audible Lane only for public Compulsory surface warning device transport minimum speed in prohibited lanes Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands
Accident Closed for Home zone Pre-announcement motorised dead end vehicles that cannot or may not drive faster than 25 km/h Poland Portugal
Vehicles End of mandatory Gravel protection carrying water use of vehicle lights Rural tourism pollution products Slovakia Slovenia Spain
U - turn Low visibility Heavy vehicles Goods vehicles
71 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Traffic sign
Sweden
Trams Pass both sides United Kingdom
2.1.6. Has the design of signs and/or symbols ever been reworked on a large scale since they have been established? (For example reworking of a whole sign category)
Of the 17 countries that responded, 12 stated that the signs and or symbols had been reworked on a large scale since they had been established. The year of this re-work varied greatly from in Sweden in 1978, to much more recent re-work, for example the UK in 2002.
2.1.7. What was the reason for rework?
Table 6 below shows the country and the reasons that were stated for the re- work:
Table 6 – Reasoning for re-work, by country Country Reason for re-work Denmark To improve the legibility and readability and create one design family.
Estonia To improve traffic management.
France Very few adaptations have been done since their establishment and it concerns very few signs.
Germany Re-working of style / design of symbols for greater simplicity.
Greece Addition of motorway signs.
Hungary Standardizing of the shape, size, colour of the signs. New look of the symbols. New categories according to the Vienna Convention.
Ireland The publication of the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) - essentially it brought various existing signs together into one document.
72 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Reason for re-work
Latvia For visibility enhancement.
Portugal The biggest change was in 1998 when a small white margin became mandatory to all vertical signs (except direction signs).
Spain No recent reworks concerning the categories of the signs. The last rework was undertaken between 1987 and 1992, mainly concerning standardisation issues and did not involve reworking of the categories.
Sweden Introduction of retro-reflective sheeting on the whole sign faces and of a colour coding system.
UK Revision of the colour-coding system for directional signs. Addition of new signs (some from the Vienna Convention). Deletion of superseded designs.
2.1.8. What are the sizes / dimensions of signs and what do they depend on? Possible criteria are shape of sign, sign category, speed limit [km/h], type of road etc.
There is variation between the sizes of the signs in the countries that responded. For example, the triangular primary road sign (33-48km/h) has a mean size across the countries of 691mm and standard deviation of 127.9 However, if the French result is excluded, the standard deviation is reduced to 91.8. This seems to be a pattern with the French signs recording larger sizes and dimensions than the other countries listed. The size and dimensions (in millimetres) of signs by country is shown in Table 7:
73 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 7 – Size (mm) and dimensions (mm) of signs, by country
NL UK Mean Latvia Ireland Spain Austria France Cyprus Cyprus Finland Greece Estonia Belgium Sweden Hungary Hungary Germany Germany Shape of sign Portugal Triangular: primary roads (81- 96km/h) / size 1000 900 900 900 900 1250 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 1300 900 1200 1000
Triangular: motorways 1750 1350 1200 / size 1000 1100 900 1200 1350 1500 1260 1200 1000 1200 1100 1150 1243
Circular: primary roads (81- 96km/h) / size 960 900 700 640 1050 600 650 600 900 900 800 900 900 650 900 795 Circular: motorways (>96km/h) / size 1200 900 900 1250 750 900 900 1200 1000 1150 1200 900 1200 1046 Rectangle: primary roads ((81- 96km/h) / size 900 900*600 800*1000 900*1350 600*900 1150*1250 900 Rectangle: motorways / size 1200 1260*840 800*1000 800*1200 1725 1463
Square: primary roads ((81- 96km/h) / size 900 600 600 600 900 900 800 1250 900 783 Square: motorways / size 1050 840 800 800 1200 1000 1725 1200 1116 Octagon: primary roads ((81- 96km/h) / size 900 1000 900 900 750 900 900 900 1250 900 750 957 Octagon: motorways / size 1200 1200 900 1200 1305
74 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
NL UK Mean Latvia Ireland Spain Austria France Cyprus Cyprus Finland Greece Estonia Belgium Sweden Hungary Hungary Germany Germany Shape of sign Portugal 1725 1200 St Andrew's cross: primary roads ((81- 96km/h) / size 1350*180 1200 900 1050 St Andrew's cross: motorways / size 1200 1200 Rhomboid: primary roads ((81- 96km/h) / size 650 650 Rhomboid: motorways / size 1200 1200
2.1.9. What type of font do you use for characters in signs or what font is it similar to?
Table 8 indicates that there are a variety of fonts that are used by the different countries. The most commonly used are Helvetica, Linear-antiqua and Transport heavy with two countries stating that they use each of these fonts. However due to the fact that dansk vejavleskrift and an unnamed font are similar to Helvetica, it seems that this is the most common font used in the countries that replied.
75 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 8 – Font type by country
Special Dansk Arial narrow Linear- Transport Din 41- 50 Font traffic font Helvetica vejtavleskrift bold Special antiqua heavy ANWB Ee Tratex
Italic of Similar to straight US highway Swiss721 font character Helvetica Arial font BdOul BT Helvetica Arial Arial Austria Y Belgium Y Cyprus Y Czech Rep Denmark Y Estonia Y Finland France Y Germany Y Greece Y Hungary Y Ireland Y Italy Latvia Y Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Y Poland Portugal Y Slovakia
76 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Special Dansk Arial narrow Linear- Transport Din 41- 50 Font traffic font Helvetica vejtavleskrift bold Special antiqua heavy ANWB Ee Tratex
Italic of Similar to straight US highway Swiss721 font character Helvetica Arial font BdOul BT Helvetica Arial Arial Slovenia Spain Sweden Y UK Y
77 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.1.10. What are the rules for the location of signs? (For example, distance to an indicated danger, placement on one or both sides of the road, repetition of signs etc.)
General rules: 15 of the 17 countries that responded (88%) had general rules for the location of signs. The two countries that did not were Belgium and Greece.
Danger Warning signs: 13 of the 17 countries that responded (76%) had rules for the location of danger warning signs. Cyprus, Denmark, the Netherlands and Ireland were the four countries that do not have any rules for the location of these signs.
Priority signs: 12 of the 17 countries that responded (71%) had rules for the location of priority signs. Austria, Denmark, Cyprus, Ireland and the Netherlands were the five countries that did not.
Prohibitory or restrictive signs: 14 of the 17 countries that responded (82%) had rules for prohibitory or restrictive signs.
Mandatory signs: 11 of the 17 countries that responded (65%) had rules for the location of mandatory signs. Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands were the six countries that did not have rules for the location of mandatory signs.
Special regulation signs: 5 of the 17 countries that responded (29%) had rules on the location of special regulation signs. Those that did have special regulations included; Sweden, Hungary, France, Latvia and Belgium.
2.1.11. What are the rules concerning the luminous properties of traffic signs?
Table 9 shows that the majority of countries have criteria for the use of the four different types of sign listed. Also the most common type of sign to be used is the retro-reflective sign. For each sign type it was recorded as being used more than 50% of the time by the countries that responded.
78 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 9 – Frequency table for the rules concerning luminous properties of traffic signs Sign type
Regulatory Warning Direction Other Countries that answered Yes to having criteria 12 out of 12 out of 11 out of 10 out of 17 (71%) 17 (71%) 17 (65%) 17 (59%) None 1 -11 Self-lighting 2112 Retro-reflective lighting 10 12 11 9 Self or retro-reflective Lighting 1111
2.1.12. Do you have any other further measures supporting harmonisation of signs in your country? (For example, central database with digitised pictures of signs)
8 of the 17 countries that responded (47%) stated that they have other further measures supporting harmonisation of signs. The results for those that did have further measures are recorded in Table 10:
Table 10 – Examples of further measures by country Country Description of measure
Finland Central database of signs with accurate dimensions of signs.
France We do have a central database which is available on the internet. We do have also numerous French standards dealing with the whole technical characteristics of signs including the accurate definition of pictograms.
Germany Every official traffic sign is part of a central database at BASt. The database, that is permanently updated, contains the signs in a digitised and reproducible format. The data is particularly interesting for everybody who is involved in production of road traffic signs.
79 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Description of measure
Latvia MS Visio database in which includes all signs on main roads.
Netherlands CROW has a database with all dimensions. (Nearly) all traffic signs are also shown on www.verkeerstekens.nl
Portugal Web site from Road Institute (Estradas de Portugal, EPE) containing all signals in electronic format (DWG).
Spain The Ministry of Transport and Public Works ("MFOM, Ministerio de Fomento") publishes a catalogue with all official traffic signs with their technical specification concerning materials, colours, symbols, etc. It is kNwn as the Official Catalogue of Traffic Signs ("Catálogo Oficial de Señales de Circulación"). However, the full "Catálogo" is not available on- line or in an electronic version.
UK See Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.
2.1.13. Do you have further legal instructions that deal with the potential problem of “information overload”? (For example, limiting the number of signs on a post or limiting the number of lines of text on a sign)
12 of the 17 countries that responded (71%) stated that they had instructions to deal with the problem of information overload. Nearly all countries had limitations and the limit often was two. The results for those that did have further measures are recorded in Table 11:
Table 11 - Further legal instructions that deal with information overload, by country Country Description of measure Austria No more than two traffic signs on one post.
Denmark No more than two signs on one post.
Finland Maximum two signs per pole plus additional panels relating to each sign.
France The number of signs on the same post is limited to two signs. We do also have general rules that specify that the superabundance of signs shall be avoided.
Germany 11 legal instructions.
Greece No more than three Warning and Regulatory Signs on same
80 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Description of measure pole. No more than two Regulatory Signs on same post. Some signs (railway crossings warning, STOP and Priority sign etc) must always be used alone. For informatory signs there are special rules for the number of lines and indications per sign. As a general rule each informatory sign must not include more than three locations (names). All informatory Signs in Greece are bilingual with Greek and Latin characters. This means that the informatory signs can have up to six lines. There are many special rules on this particularly for motorways.
Hungary Maximum three.
Latvia No more than three signs on a post. Minimum distance between signs in urban road is 25m, in rural roads 50m.
Netherlands Outside built-up areas, no more than two signs on one post.
Portugal Maximum of two signs and two additional panels on each sign post.
Spain Concerning the number of signs: the Spanish legislation "advices" that the separation between two traffic signs (of any type) should be of at least 150 metres. Concerning the priority between categories of signs: in case the length of the road section does not allow space for all the necessary signs (respecting the 150 metre rule), the most important signs, and thus the ones placed as first choice are danger warning and prohibitory and restrictive signs.
Sweden Not exactly legal instructions but recommendations on not more than three standard signs on one post. Not more than four destinations on each direction on direction signs.
2.1.14. Please give a rough estimation about the total number of traffic signs (without direction signs) along the Trans-European-Road- Network (TERN) in your country.
Few countries provided a response to this question. The responses that were received are listed in Table 12 below:
81 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 12 – Total number of traffic signs along the TERN, by country Country Total number of traffic signs along the TERN Cyprus 500 Denmark 5000 Ireland 20000 Latvia 7500 UK 76000
Reasoning for no response to this question: Belgium Number of traffic signs unknown. Insufficient data to give even an approximate number France of traffic signs. Sweden It is not possible to estimate number of traffic signs.
82 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2. Direction signs
Conventional junctions and their direction signs
2.2.1. Signs used at Junction 1
Table 13 shows the relative sign positions, for each country responding, for verge mounted and overhead signs:
83 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 13 – Junction (1) Motorway Intersection: Verge mounted and overhead signs
Junction (1) Motorway Intersection Aust ria Belgi um Cypr us Czec h Rep ublic Ger man y Den mark Esto nia Finla nd Fran ce Gree ce Irela nd Italy Latvi a Luxe mbo urg Malt a The Neth erlan ds Pola nd Port ugal Slov akia Slov enia Spai n Swe den Unit ed King dom Hung ary Lithu ania A B CY CZ D DK EST FIN F GR H IRL I LV LT L M NL PL P SK SLO E S UK
Confirmatory sign
0m
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
600m
700m
800m
900m
1000m
1100m
1200m
1300m
1400m
1500m
1600m
1700m
1800m
1900m
2000m
84 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.2. Signs used at Junction 2
Table 14 shows the relative sign positions, for each country responding, for verge mounted and overhead signs:
85 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 14 – Junction (2) Motorway Exit: Verge mounted and overhead signs
Junction (2) Motorway Exit Aust ria Belgi um Cypr us Czec h Rep ublic Ger man y Den mark Esto nia Finla nd Fran ce Gree ce Irela nd Italy Latvi a Luxe mbo urg Malt a The Neth erlan ds Pola nd Port ugal Slov akia Slov enia Spai n Swe den Unit ed King dom Hung ary Lithu ania A B CY CZ D DK EST FIN F GR H IRL I LV LT L M NL PL P SK SLO E S UK
Confirmatory sign
0m
100m
200m
300m
400m
500m
600m
700m
800m
900m
1000m
1100m
1200m
1300m
1400m
1500m
1600m
1700m
1800m
1900m
2000m
86 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.3. Signs used at Junction 3
Table 15 shows the relative sign positions, for each country responding, for all sign locations:
87 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 15 – Junction (3) Motorway entry: All signs locations
Junction (3) Motorway Entry Aust ria Belgi um Cypr us Czec h Rep ublic Ger man y Den mark Esto nia Finla nd Fran ce Gree ce Irela nd Italy Latvi a Luxe mbo urg Malt a The Neth erlan ds Pola nd Port ugal Slov akia Slov enia Spai n Swe den Unit ed King dom Hung ary Lithu ania A B CY CZ D DK EST FIN F GR H IRL I LV LT L M NL PL P SK SLO E S UK
0m
50m
100m
150m *
200m
250m *
300m
350m
400m
450m
500m *
550m
600m
650m
700m
750m *
800m
850m
900m
950m
1000m *
1100m
1200m
1300m
1400m
1500m *
*Position of sign depends on speed limit
88 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.4. Signs used at Junction 4
Table 16 shows the relative sign positions, for each country responding, for all sign locations:
89 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 16– Junction (4) Main road junction: All signs locations
Junction (4) Main Road Junction Irela nd Italy Latvi a Luxe mbo urg Malt a The Neth erlan ds Pola nd Port ugal Slov akia Slov enia Spai n Swe den Unit ed King dom Aust ria Belgi um Cypr us Czec h Rep ublic Ger man y Den mark Esto nia Finla nd Fran ce Gree ce Hung ary Lithu ania ABCYCZDDKESTFINFGRHIRLILVLTLMNLPLPSKSLOESUK
Confirmatory sign
0m
50m
100m
150m
200m
250m
300m
350m
400m
450m
500m *
550m
600m
650m
700m
750m *
800m
900m
1000m *
1100m
1200m
1300m
1400m
1500m *
*Position of sign depends on speed limit
90 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.5. Signs used at Junction 5
Table 17 shows the relative sign positions, for each country responding, for all sign locations:
91 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 17 – Junction (5) Roundabout: All sign locations
Junction (5) Roundabout Irela nd Italy Latvi a Luxe mbo urg Malt a The Neth erlan ds Pola nd Port ugal Slov akia Slov enia Spai n Swe den Unit ed King dom Aust ria Belgi um Cypr us Czec h Rep ublic Ger man y Den mark Esto nia Finla nd Fran ce Gree ce Hung ary Lithu ania A B CY CZ D DK EST FIN F GR H IRL I LV LT L M NL PL P SK SLO E S UK Direction sign on roundabout
0m
50m
100m
150m
200m
250m
300m
350m
400m
450m
500m
550m
600m
650m
700m
750m *
800m
*Position of sign (between 150m and 750m) depends on speed limit
92 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Road number
2.2.6. Are there motorways or main roads, which are identified only by an E-Nr.?
Only two out of the 17 countries which responded (12%) have motorways or main roads identified only by an E –nr.
Denmark and Sweden were the only two countries identifying motorways or main roads only by an E – nr.
2.2.7. Which road numbers exist?
Motorway:14 out of the 17 countries which responded (82%) have road numbers. Estonia, Finland and Latvia do not have road numbers on motorways.
Primary road: All countries which responded (100%) have road numbers.
Non-primary road (outside of City): 14 out of the 17 countries which responded (82%) have road numbers.
City road: Only three out of the 17 countries which responded (18%) of countries which responded have road numbers. Only the Netherlands, France and the United Kingdom have road numbers on city roads.
Other roads: Only three out of the 16 countries which responded (27%) have road numbers. France, Portugal and Sweden have road numbers on other roads.
2.2.8. Please send us pictures of the used road numbers as attachment (including E-Nr.) together with the size (height) of lettering on motorways.
Examples of road numbers used in each country responding plus information supplied on the height of lettering for different category roads are shown in Table 18:
93 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 18 – Examples of road numbers and height of lettering
Country Road numbers Height of lettering (mm) on:
E roads, motorways and primary roads
Austria E – Nr : 245 mm (road side sign)
245 mm (overhead Motorway Primary road sign)
Motorway - Nr: 280 mm (road side sign) 350 mm (overhead sign)
Primary road - Nr: 280 mm (road side sign) 350 mm (overhead sign)
Belgium
Primary Ordinary road road
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
Primary Secondary road road
Finland
Primary Secondary Regional road road road
Ordinary road
94 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Road numbers Height of lettering (mm) on:
E roads, motorways and primary roads
France Germany E – Nr : 245 mm (confirmatory road side sign)
Motorway - Nr:
280 mm (road side sign) 350 mm (overhead sign) 245 mm (confirmatory sign)
Primary road - Nr: 280 mm (road side sign) 350 mm (overhead sign)
Greece E – Nr: 245 mm (confirmatory sign) 280mm (warning sign) 350mm (overhead sign)
Hungary 350 mm (210 mm on other roads)
Ireland Italy Latvia E – Nr : E 67 350 mm (road side sign)
95 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Road numbers Height of lettering (mm) on:
E roads, motorways and primary roads
350 mm (overhead sign) Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands E – Nr : 305 mm
Main roads (non motorways)
Motorway - Nr: 305 mm
Motorways and E-roads
Main roads - Nr: Main urban roads 305 mm
Poland
Portugal Motorway - Nr: 320 mm (minimum) 400mm
(recommended)
Slovakia Slovenia Spain The size of these signs is not fixed and depends on the size of Highway/motorway Highway, tolled the direction sign in non - tolled which they are inserted
National network Regional network road road, first class
Regional network road, Regional network road, second class third class
96 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Road numbers Height of lettering (mm) on:
E roads, motorways and primary roads
Sweden United Kingdom
2.2.9. On which signs at junctions 1-4 are road numbers shown? Please indicate the type of sign, where the road number is used.
Table 19 shows the number of countries responding positively for each particular category out of a total of 17 countries responding.
97 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 19 – Number of respondents for each category
(1) Motorway intersection (2) Motorway exit (3) Motorway entry (4) Main road
Road number Announcement sign Advanced direction sign Direction sign Confirmatory sign Announcement sign Advanced direction the (i.e. / straight sign aheadsign)of arm a Advanced direction off the (i.e. / exit sign arma sign) of Directionsign / straight (i.e. the ahead arm of a sign) Directionsign / exit(i.e. the offsign)of arm a Confirmatory sign Advanced direction the to arm off (i.e. sign motorway) Directionsign (i.e. off arm tothe motorway) Advanced direction sign Direction sign
E-Nr 59910477561186106
Motorway-Nr 51112122106 8 6 91111910
Primary road-Nr 3 8 8 8 51115914128 71514
Non-Primary road- Nr (outside of city) 15442786675499
City road-Nr 01100120201122
Other road-Nr ……. 02111222222222
…… 10000000000000
98 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.10. Are there any additional signs, on which road numbers are used?
No other responses were coded.
Road number used as a destination
2.2.11. Can the road number be used as a destination (the road with this number will be reached later)?
14 out of 17 countries which responded (82%) use road numbers as a destination. Only Belgium, Greece and Spain do not use road numbers as a destination.
Table 20 below shows some practical examples:
Table 20 – Examples of road numbers used as a destination
Country Road numbers used as a destination
Austria
Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Road numbers used as a destination
France Germany
Greece Hungary
Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
100 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Road numbers used as a destination
Sweden United Kingdom
Number of motorway intersection
2.2.12. On which signs are the number of the motorway intersection shown?
Announcement sign
Only five out of the 15 countries that responded (33%) have the number of the motorway intersection shown on announcement signs.
Advance direction sign
Eight out of the 15 countries that responded (53%) have the number of the motorway intersection shown on advance direction signs.
Direction sign
Seven out of the 15 countries that responded (47%) have the number of the motorway intersection shown on direction signs.
There is no number.
Only five out of the 16 countries that responded (31%) have no number.
Additional signs, explanations:
Denmark - The motorway intersection has a name.
Finland - Confirmatory sign, distances to the next two intersections.
France – A specific sign for motorway intersections
The Netherlands - Signs with the name of the junction are shown on the announcement sign (300m after the first advance direction sign).
United Kingdom - Signs on other roads on the immediate approach to the motorway junction.
Number of motorway exit
2.2.13. On which signs are the number of the motorway exit shown?
Announcement sign
101 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Eight out of the 16 countries that responded (50%) have the number of the motorway exit shown on announcement signs.
Advance direction sign
12 out of the 16 countries that responded (75%) have the number of the motorway exit shown on advance direction signs.
Direction sign
10 out of the 16 countries that responded (63%) have the number of the motorway exit shown on a direction sign.
There is no number.
Only one country which responded (7%) has no number. Only Sweden has no number on the motorway exit.
Additional signs, explanation:
Germany- On sign notifying exit (300 metres).
Name of motorway intersection
2.2.14. Do motorway intersections have a name?
Six out of the 14 countries which responded (43%) said that their motorway intersections always had a name.
Only one country out of the 14 countries which responded (7%) said that their motorway intersections sometimes have a name. Finland sometimes has a name for motorway intersections.
Explanation:
Finland - They will be replaced by numbers
If yes or sometimes, on which sign is it shown?
Announcement sign
Six out of the seven countries which responded (86%) have the name of a motorway intersection on announcement signs. Of the countries responding who use announcement signs, only Sweden do not have a motorway intersection name on the sign.
102 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Advance direction sign
Two of the seven countries which responded (29%) have the name of a motorway intersection on advance direction signs.
Direction sign
Only one out of the 7 countries which responded (14%)have the name of a motorway intersection on direction signs. Only Sweden does not have the name of a motorway intersection on direction signs.
Not shown.
No respondents.
2.2.15. Is the name of a motorway intersection already shown at the previous junction?
Three out of the seven countries which responded (43%) have the name of a motorway intersection already shown at a previous junction.
If yes, on which signs?
Announcement sign
Two out of the four countries which responded (50%) have the name of a motorway intersection shown on announcement signs.
Advance direction sign
One out of the four countries which responded (25%) have the name of a motorway intersection shown on advance direction signs.
Direction sign
No respondents.
Confirmatory sign
No respondents.
Name of motorway exit
2.2.16. Do motorway exits have a name?
Only five out of the 14 countries which responded (36%) have motorway exits with a name.
103 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
If yes, where is the name at the motorway exit shown?
Announcement sign
Three out of the five countries which responded (60%) have the name of a motorway exit shown on announcement signs.
Advance direction sign
All five of the countries which responded (100%) have the name of a motorway exit shown on advance direction signs.
Direction sign
Four out of the five countries which responded (80%) have the name of a motorway exit shown on direction signs. Only Finland does not have the name of a motorway exit on direction signs.
Not shown
No respondents.
2.2.17 Is the name of the motorway exit also a destination?
Four out of the seven countries which responded (57%) have the name of the motorway exit also as a destination.
If yes, where is the name positioned?
Three out of the four countries which responded (75%) have the name positioned above the other destinations with the same background colour.
No countries which responded have the name positioned under the other destinations with the same background colour.
One out of the four countries which responded (25%) has another other rule: Not specified.
No countries which responded, do not have a special rule.
2.2.18. Is the name already shown at the previous junction?
Three out of the six countries which responded (50%) have the name already shown at the previous junction.
If yes, on which signs?
104 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Announcement sign
No countries which responded have the name shown on announcement signs
Advance direction sign
Three out of the four countries which responded (75%) have the name shown on advance direction signs
Direction sign
None of the countries which responded has the name shown on direction signs
Confirmatory sign
No countries which responded have the name shown on a confirmatory sign.
The use of the motorway symbol in direction signs
2.2.19. Is the symbol for motorway Error! Objects cannot be created from editing field codes. used in the direction signing outside motorways?
Not used
Only three out of the seventeen countries which responded (18%) do not use motorway symbols in direction signing outside motorways. Estonia, Latvia and Spain do not use motorway symbols in direction signing outside motorways.
Directly at the final approach to the motorway
Thirteen out of the sixteen countries which responded (81%) use motorway symbols at the final approach to the motorway.
On the main roads leading to motorways
Ten out of the sixteen countries which responded (63%) use motorway symbols on the main roads leading to motorways.
Table 21 below shows examples of the use of motorway symbol in direction signs:
105 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 21 – Some examples of motorway symbols on direction signs
Country Motorway symbols on direction signs
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany
Greece Hungary
Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
106 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Motorway symbols on direction signs
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
Pictograms
2.2.20. Which pictograms are used in direction signs on motorways? Please send us pictures of the pictograms and explain their meanings.
Pictures of pictograms and explanation of their meanings are shown in Table 22
Table 22 – Pictures of some pictograms on direction signs
Country Pictograms on direction signs
Austria
Airport Centre of a city Motorway Motorway Intersection Exit
Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
107 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Pictograms on direction signs
Airport Harbour Industrial Route facility for transportation of dangerous goods
France
Park Airport Motorway Hospital Intersection
Germany
Motorway Motorway Airport Harbour Industrial Exit Intersection facility
Hungary
Airport Railway station Harbour Swing bridge or ferry
Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
Airport Industrial area Short ferry connection
Football stadium Caravan Long ferry connection and camp site
108 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Pictograms on direction signs
Poland Portugal
Castle or Beach World heritage Terminal monument
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
Nationality symbol for foreign countries
2.2.21. Are nationality symbols used?
Only three out of the 17 countries which responded (18%) use nationality symbols for foreign countries. Only Austria, Germany and Hungary use nationality symbols for foreign countries.
Table 23 below shows examples of direction signs with nationality symbols:
Table 23 – Nationality symbols on direction signs Country Nationality symbols on direction signs
Austria
Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France
109 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Nationality symbols on direction signs
Germany
Greece Hungary
Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
Foreign destinations
2.2.22. Which language is used for destinations in neighbourhood countries?
Only own language
Only seven out of the 17 countries which responded (41%) use only their own language for destinations in neighbourhood countries.
Only the foreign language
Only four out of the 16 countries which responded (25%) use only the foreign language for destinations in neighbourhood countries.
Always both languages
110 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Only two out of the 16 countries which responded (13%) always use both languages for destinations in neighbourhood countries. Ireland always use both languages, i.e. Irish and English for destinations in neighbourhood countries and Belgium also use both languages.
Only both languages, if understanding of the foreign destination would be too difficult
Only three out of the 16 countries which responded (19%) only use both languages if understanding of the foreign destination would be too difficult. The three countries responding positively to this particular question were Austria, France and Germany.
Both only in special cases
Only two out of the 16 countries which responded (13%) use both languages only in special cases. The two countries responding positively to this particular question were Finland and Sweden.
Explanation:
Finland - Near the border always in both languages.
Bi-lingual signs
2.2.23. Do you have any bi-lingual signs for destinations in your country?
All signs bi-lingual
Only three out of the seventeen countries which responded (18%) said that all their signs are bi-lingual. All of the signs are bi-lingual in Cyprus, Greece and Ireland.
Many signs bi-lingual
Only three out of the 17 countries which responded (18%) said that many of their signs are bi-lingual. Many of the signs are bi-lingual in Belgium, Finland and Spain.
Few signs bi-lingual
Four out of the seventeen countries which responded (24%) said that few of their signs are bi-lingual.
No signs bi-lingual
111 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Eight out of the seventeen countries which responded (47%) said that none of their signs are bi-lingual.
Please explain, if you have “many” or “few” signs bi-lingual:
Belgium: Many bi-lingual signs in the ‘department’ of Brussels and Eupen.
Finland: Finland has two official languages, Finnish and Swedish. The Swedish minority lives mainly in the coastal municipalities and there the signs are bi-lingual.
Ireland: Irish and English.
Netherlands: The Scottish court for the Lockerbie trial was marked in English. Amsterdam airport has bilingual signs.
Sweden - Bi-lingual signs are used only in areas defined as bi-lingual areas, i.e. in the north of Sweden and only on some identification signs.
United Kingdom - In Wales many signs are bilingual, also a few in Scotland.
Selection of destinations and colour of background
2.2.24. Which type of destinations can be shown in direction signs?
Table 24 below shows the type of destinations which can be shown in direction signs, with the background colour. The background colours shown in the table is the total for each of the destination types and road junction in terms of the percentage of all the countries that responded.
Note that the percentages given for each category do not add up to 100% because several countries use different background colours for the same type of destination depending on the type of road. For example, at a motorway exit junction, on the exit signs, Portugal uses a blue background colour for a city destination via a motorway and a green background colour for a city destination via a main road. Additionally, some countries have not given a response for every signing category.
112 IMPROVER Subproject 4, Appendix C, Data collection and analysis at a national level TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 24 – Types of destinations which can be shown on motorway signs with different background colours Motorway Main road
Intersection and exit junction (1) and (2) Junction (3) - (5)
Destinations Straight Exit
Blue (65%), Green (29%), Blue (47%), Green (24%), City, Town Blue (53%), Green (24%) White (12%) White (35%), Yellow (6%)
Blue (47%), Green (18%), Blue (41%), Green (18%), Small Town, village Blue (65%), Green (6%) White (18%) White (35%), Yellow (6%)
Blue (12%), Green (6%), Landscape Blue 12%), Brown (18%) Brown (18%) White (6%), Brown (24%)
Blue (29%),White (12%), Blue (18%), Green (6%), Blue (12%), Green (18%), Industrial facility Grey (12%) White (35%), Grey (12%) White (59%), Grey (12%)
Blue (18%), Green (6%), Blue (18%), Green (6%), Blue (18%), Green (12%), Tourist destinations White (6%), Brown (12%) White (24%), Brown (18%) White (29%), Brown (35%)
Blue (29%), Green (18%), Blue (41%), Green (18%), Blue (24%), Green (24%), Airport White (24%) White (41%) White (71%)
Blue (18%), Green (18%), Blue (29%), Green (18%), Blue (24%), Green (24%), Harbour White (24%) White (41%) White (65%)
Other destinations: Inside built-up areas like city centres, districts etc. White (14%) White (21%) White (21%)
Fair White (7%) White (7%) White (7%)
Sports Orange (7% Orange (7% Orange (7%
Motorways destinations on main Blue (41%), Green (29%), roads White (6%)
IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.25. What determines the destination with the longest distance? (e.g. town at the end of a motorway, name of a town near an important intersection, large cities)
Austria - Large cities close to the end of motorway or important for the orientation in the road network.
Cyprus - Maximum three destinations at motorway exits (i) First destination at exit, (ii) major town on exit road, (iii) last town on exit road. For destinations that are straight-ahead, the town at the end of the motorway is used.
Denmark - Catalogue of destinations. Only long distance destinations (large cities or Harbour cities at the end of the motorway) at motorway intersections and on gantries for destinations along the motorway. Destinations at exit panels are the two destinations that characterise the route on the crossing road.
Finland - Large cities, which inform drivers about the general direction of the road.
France – Population number.
Germany - Large cities close to the end of motorway or important for the orientation in the road network.
Greece - Largest cities.
Hungary - Greater towns of neighbour countries, county centres, towns near greater intersections.
Ireland - On ADS - Terminal destination plus terminal of spur route. On Direction Signs - as for ADS plus nearest significant town.
Netherlands - "Main target" equates to a large town lying near the motorway and that dominates the region (or is expected to do so in the future). "End target" equates to the last main target before crossing the border, and is mentioned on E-roads. On international roads, also the first significant target after the border is mentioned, provided that this destination is also mentioned on the other side of the border.
Portugal - First level of importance towns at the end of the motorway.
Spain - The Spanish road network is divided into sections between nodes. These nodes are always the longest distance of a given section, being several secondary nodes or destinations included in the direction sign.
Sweden - The National Signing Plan. The destination at the end of the road is normally displayed all along the road (end control city).
United Kingdom - Target destination (far end of route) shown first, then the nearest primary destination in list published in Local Transport Note 1/94 (as amended).
114 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.26. What determines the destinations between large cities? (e.g. name of next exit)
Austria - The nearest destination in straight direction is usually the name of the next exit, in the exit direction the name of a town close to the exit.
Denmark - The exit name has to be a well known place or city shown on the roadmaps.
France – Population number.
Germany – The nearest destination in straight direction is usually the name of the next exit, in the exit direction the name of a town close to the exit.
Greece - Closest villages to the motorway.
Hungary – Centres of smaller districts; Other towns; Greater villages; Location of special interest.
Ireland – A County town or a town of sizeable population.
Netherlands – An exit name is the name of a nearby town or other destination, or sometimes an urban road number.
Portugal - First criterion: destination's level of importance (five levels exist in Portugal); Second criteria: distance.
Spain – Large cities are the primary nodes. In sections between primary names (main nodes) the secondary nodes are shown in the direction sign in the order which they will appear, with a limit of three destinations per direction sign.
Sweden – Still the end control city plus important destinations as intermediate control cities plus the nearest city.
United Kingdom - Nearest primary destination; nearest large town if this is closer.
Arrangement of the destinations
2.2.27. Is the distance up to a destination a criterion for the arrangement of the destinations on the sign?
Sixteen out of the 17 countries which responded (94%) said that the distance up to a destination is a criterion for the arrangement of the destinations on the sign. Only Spain does not use the distance up to a destination as a criterion for the arrangement of the destination son the sign.
If yes, where is the position of the destination with the longest distance?
115 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
On top
13 out of the 17 countries which responded (76%) said that the position of the destination with the longest distance is on top.
Right at the bottom
Only four out of the 17 countries which responded (24%) said that the position of the destination with the longest distance is right at the bottom.
Other criteria
No countries which responded said that there were any other criteria.
2.2.28. If other criteria, please explain:
Maximum number of destinations
2.2.29. For motorway exits: What is the maximum number for the destinations regularly shown including all segments with different background colours?
Table 25 below shows the maximum number of destinations for each type of sign used for motorway exits as a percentage of the total number of countries responding.
Note that the percentages in Table 25 do not add up to 100% because some countries do not use announcement signs and not every country has responded for every category of signing, e.g. for advance signs in the straight direction, only 13 out of the 17 countries gave a response. The same comment applies to Tables 26, 27, 28, 31 and 32.
Table 25 – Maximum number of destinations used for each type of signs used for motorway exits
Motorways Maximum number of destinations (percentage of total number of countries responding)
0 12345678910 Announcement sign 0% 6% 6% 12% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Advance Straight direction 0% 6% 6% 41% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Direction sign Exit direction 0% 0% 24% 24% 18% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 18% 29% 6% 0% 0% 6% Direction sign Straight direction 18% 0% 12% 12% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Exit direction 6% 0% 18% 24% 18% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 6% 0% 6% 12% 35% 6% 12% 0% 0% 0% 6% Confirmatory sign 0% 6% 24% 35% 12% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2.2.30. Is the actual number of destinations in practice higher than allowed?
Nine out of the 15 countries responding (60%) said that it was rare that the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed.
116 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Five out of the 15 countries responding (33%) said that occasionally the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed.
Only one out of the 15 countries responding (7%) said that often the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed. Only the United Kingdom said that in practice the actual number of destinations was higher than that allowed.
2.2.31. For main roads: What is the maximum number for the destinations regularly including all segments with different background colours?
Table 26 below shows the maximum number of destinations for each type of sign used for main roads as a percentage of the total number of countries responding:
Table 26 - Maximum number of destinations used for each type of signs used for main road exits
Main roads Maximum number of destinations (percentage of total number of countries responding)
0 123456789101112 Announcement sign 0% 0% 0% 12% 6% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Advance Straight direction 0% 6% 12% 35% 6% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Direction sign left turn 0% 0% 18% 35% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% right turn 0% 0% 18% 35% 6% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 0% 0% 0% 0% 24% 6% 24% 0% 0% 18% 6% 0% 6% Direction sign Straight direction 18% 0% 12% 18% 12% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% left turn 0% 0% 18% 29% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% right turn 0% 0% 18% 29% 12% 0% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Total 0% 0% 0% 6% 29% 6% 18% 0% 6% 6% 6% 0% 6% Confirmatory sign 0% 0% 0% 24% 29% 6% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2.2.32. Is the actual number of destinations in practice higher than allowed?
Only two out of the 16 countries responding (13%) said that it was never the case that the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed. Estonia and the Netherlands were the only two countries responding positively to this question.
Only three out of the 16 countries responding (19%) said that it was rare that the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed.
Six out of the 16 countries responding (37%) said that occasionally the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed.
Five out of the 16 countries responding (31%) said that often the actual number of destinations was higher in practice than that allowed.
117 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Continuity
2.2.33. Is continuity a criterion for selecting a destination at a junction?
All 17 countries which responded (100%) said that continuity was a criterion for selecting a destination at a junction.
2.2.34. On motorways with direction signs and advance direction signs: Do direction signs contain the same destinations as the previous advance direction signs?
For the straight direction:
Eleven out of the thirteen countries responding (85%) said that for the straight direction, direction signs contain the same destinations as the previous advance direction signs. Cyprus is the only country for the straight direction which does not have direction signs which contain the same information as the previous advance direction signs.
For the exit direction:
Thirteen out of the fifteen countries responding (87%) said that for the exit direction, direction signs contain the same destinations as the previous advance direction signs. Denmark and Spain are the only two countries for the exit direction which do not have direction signs which contain the same information as the previous advance direction signs.
Size of characters: Motorway
If the size of characters does not depend on speed:
2.2.35. What is the fixed size (that is the height of capital letters) for signs next to the road?
For this particular question, only thirteen (76%) out of the seventeen countries responded. One particular country, Latvia does not have any motorways.
Of the thirteen countries which responded, seven (54%) exclusively use this particular criterion and two countries (15%) use both this and the criterion (size of character dependent on speed), where the size of characters depends on speed.
Table 27 below shows the percentage of countries using a particular capital height for characters on signs next to the road:
118 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 27 – Percentage of countries using a particular capital height for road side signs on motorways
Sample size = 9 countries Percentage of countries using a particular height of capital letters Next to the road 200mm 240mm 250mm 270mm 280mm 300mm 350mm 360mm 380mm 400mm 420mm Announcement sign 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% Advance direction sign 0% 0% 11% 0% 10% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% Direction sign 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 20% Confirmatory sign 11% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 10% 0% 0% 0% 10%
Note: the largest size has been selected for cases where different letter size options have been supplied.
2.2.36. What is the fixed size for overhead signs?
Table 28 below shows the percentage of countries using a particular capital height for characters on overhead signs:
Table 28 – Percentage of countries using a particular capital height for overhead signs on motorways
Sample size = 9 countries Percentage of countries using a particular height of capital letters Overhead signs 200mm 240mm 250mm 270mm 280mm 300mm 350mm 360mm 380mm 400mm 420mm Announcement sign 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20%
Advance direction sign 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% Direction sign 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% Confirmatory sign 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 33% 11%
Note: the largest size has been selected for cases where different letter size options have been supplied.
If the size of characters depends on speed:
2.2.37 What is the size of capital lettering for signs next to the road?
Of the fourteen countries which responded, five countries, Austria, Belgium, France, the Netherlands and Portugal (36%) exclusively use this criterion and two additional countries, Hungary and the United Kingdom (14%) use both this and the criterion, where the size of characters does not depend on speed.
Table 29 below shows the percentage of countries responding using a size of lettering related to a particular speed limit for signs next to the road:
119 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 29 – Percentage of countries using a letter size related to a speed limit for road side signs on motorways Signs next to the road Sample size = 7 countries Speed limit (km/h) 80 90 100 110 110 112 120 130 120 130 Size of lettering (mm) 350 240 360 300 350 560 240 400 360 400 Percentage 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 43% 14% 43%
2.2.38. What is the size for overhead signs?
Table 30 below shows the percentage of the six countries, Austria, Belgium ,France, Hungary, the Netherlands and Portugal using a size of lettering related to a particular speed limit for overhead signs:
Table 30 – Percentage of countries using a letter size related to a speed limit for overhead signs on motorways
Overhead signs Sample size = 6 countries Speed limit (km/h) 80 90 100 120 120 110 110 130 130 Size of lettering (mm) 400 240 270 240 270 320 350 430 600 Percentage 17% 17% 17% 33% 17% 17% 17% 17% 17%
Size of characters: Main road
If the size of characters does not depend on speed:
2.2.39. What is the fixed size (that is the height of capital letters) for signs next to the road?
All of the nine countries which responded exclusively use this particular criterion.
Table 31 shows the percentage of countries using a particular capital height for characters on signs next to the road:
120 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 31– Percentage of countries using a particular capital height for road side signs on main roads
Sample size = 9 countries Percentage of countries using a particular height of capital letters Next to the road 180mm 240mm 250mm 270mm 280mm 300mm 350mm 360mm 380mm 400mm 420mm Announcement sign 0% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Advance direction sign 11% 0% 11% 11% 11% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Direction sign 11% 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% Confirmatory sign 11% 0% 0% 11% 11% 11% 11% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Note: the largest size has been selected for cases where different letter size options have been supplied
2.2.40. What is the fixed size for overhead signs?
Table 32 below shows the percentage of countries using a particular capital height for characters on overhead signs:
Table 32– Percentage of countries using a particular capital height for road side signs on main roads
Sample size = 9 Percentage of countries using a particular height of capital letters Overhead signs 200mm 240mm 250mm 270mm 280mm 300mm 350mm 360mm 380mm 400mm 420mm Announcement sign 11% 0% 0% 0% 0% 22% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Advance direction sign 11%0%0%0%11%56%0%0%0%0%0% Direction sign 11%0%0%0%11%56%0%0%0%0%0% Confirmatory sign 11%0%0%0%11%44%0%0%0%0%0%
Note: the largest size has been selected for cases where different letter size options have been supplied
If the size of characters depends on speed:
2.2.41. What is the size of capital lettering for signs next to the road?
Table 33 below shows the percentage of the seven countries, Austria, Belgium, France, Hungary, the Netherlands, Portugal and the United Kingdom using a size of lettering related to a particular speed limit for signs next to the road:
Table 33 – Percentage of countries using a letter size related to a speed limit for road side signs on main roads
Signs next to the rSample size =7 countries Speed limit (km/h) 30 32 48 50 50 60 64 70 70 80 80 80 90 90 96 100 112 120 120 130 Size of lettering (m 105 105 140 125 126 140 175 140 160 140 170 210 180 250 280 200 350 210 240 400 Percentage 29% 14% 14% 14% 29% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%
121 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.2.42. What is the size for overhead signs?
Table 34 below shows the percentage of countries using a size of lettering related to a particular speed limit for overhead signs:
Table 34– Percentage of countries using a letter size related to a speed limit for overhead signs on main roads
Overhead signs Sample size = 7 countries Speed limit (km/h) 32 48 50 64 70 70 80 90 90 90 96 100 >100 100 110 120
Size of lettering (mm) 105 140 175 175 210 320 210 180 285 320 280 240 360 320 350 210 Percentage 14% 29% 29% 14% 14% 29% 14% 29% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14% 14%
Visibility
2.2.43. How do you achieve a good visibility?
Table 35 below shows how different countries which have responded achieve good visibility:
Table 35 – Methods that different countries have used to achieve good sign visibility Country Method of achieving good visibility
Austria Main road: next to the road – Type 1 Main road overhead – Type 2 Motorway next to the road – Type 2 Motorway overhead – Type 3
Belgium Motorways: at least Class 3 for direction signs - retroreflective; All roads: at least Class 2 - retroreflective
Denmark Lighting is used on gantries where dew is a problem. Drivers’ need for luminance is the basis. The required luminance results in three retro-reflectivity classes: 3, 4 and 5 and they have nothing to do with material except class 5 which cannot be achieved by using beads.
Estonia I class reflective foil is generally required. On main roads, above the road and on some certain signs II class (higher) reflective foil is required. The exact minimum retro-reflective values are shown in the standard.
Finland Low traffic roads/ no traffic lighting-->R1, enclosed lens type.
122 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Method of achieving good visibility
Motorways/ main roads with high traffic volume-->R2, encapsulated lens type. Overhead signs-->R3, microprismatic.
France Retro-reflective foils – microprismatic type.
Germany Normal surrounding: Next to the road, right side- encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2 (motorway), enclosed lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2 and encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2 (main road). Next to the road, left side- encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2 (motorway and main road). Overhead- encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2 (motorway and main road).
Surrounding with bright light: Next to the road, right side- encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2, micro prismatic type according to DIN 67520 Part 4 (motorway and main road). Next to the road, left side- micro prismatic type according to DIN 67520 Part 4 (motorway), encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2, micro prismatic type according to DIN 67520 Part 4 (main road). Overhead- micro prismatic type according to DIN 67520 Part 4 (motorway), encapsulated lens type according to DIN 67 520 Part 2, micro prismatic type according to DIN 67520 Part 4 (main road).
Hungary Overhead signs and next-to-road signs over 2,5 m on all types of roads: retro-reflective foil of microprismatic type; Next-to-road signs on motorways: retro-reflective foil of encapsulated lens type; Next-to-road signs on other roads: retro-reflective foil of enclosed lens type
Netherlands All direction signs should have Class II standard according to EN12899-1 norms. Class III must be used for all signs more than 4.60m above road surface. If a sign is too far from the car light beam (e.g. in curves or to far away from centreline) lighting should be used, but Class II standard is still compulsory.
123 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Method of achieving good visibility
Portugal Recent amendments (Article 15th of Decreto Regulamentar n.º 41/2002 de 20 de Agosto de 2002) to the National Road Code (Decreto Regulamentar n.º 22-A/98 de 1 de Outubro de 1998) demand that all vertical signs (including direction signs) must be retro- reflective or illuminated externally or internally. No regulation regarding type of lens yet, although it is expected in the short / medium term.
Spain All road panels must have retro-reflective properties. In three levels- highways and motorways must have highest (best) level.
Sweden Retro-reflective material of encapsulated lens type on side mounted signs. Retro-reflective material of encapsulated lens type and external illumination on overhead mounted signs. Retro-reflective material of microprismatic type only on overhead signs with dark surroundings in rural areas. United Kingdom Illumination requirements for traffic signs must conform to TSRGD 2002: Schedule 17 (Illumination of signs).
Retro-reflective and non-retroflective signs must conform to the British Standard: BS873 Part 6: 1983 "Road traffic signs and internally illuminated bollards" or to EN 12899-1.
Research results
2.2.44. Do you know research results relating to direction signs?
Only four out of the 17 countries responding (24%) are aware of research results relating to direction signs.
If yes, please name title of the study and year of appearance (please in English):
United Kingdom:
1. Relative effectiveness of some letter types designed for use on road traffic signs. Christie and Rutley, 1961
2. Time taken to read s traffic sign and its effect on the size of lettering necessary. Odescalchi, Rutley and Christie, 1962
124 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
3. Research on traffic signs. Moore and Christie, 1963
4. Comprehension of traffic signs by drivers and non-drivers. Cooper, 1989
5. Obscuration of traffic signs and signals. McDonald and Hall, 1989
6. A laboratory experiment to measure drivers' response times to direction signs. Agg, 1993
7. Direction Sign Overload. TRL Project Report 77, 1994
8. Traffic sign clutter. Cooper, Allen and Smith, 1998
Comments
2.2.45. In your opinion what are further aspects that are important concerning harmonisation of direction signs across the EU?
Denmark: The argument for harmonisation is not traffic safety, but a political wish to visualize the Union on the roads. No research has proven the traffic safety benefits and one concern could be that the road works caused by the replacement of signs would result in many injury accidents.
Finland: The general principle behind direction signing, e.g. In Finland and Sweden it is based on remote destinations and in some other countries more on intersection destinations. Which will be chosen for TERN?
France: Uniformity of information: everywhere, same elements of direction signs have the same meaning and value.
Hungary:
1. At the introduction of this questionnaire (page 1) the sign G6b is not a "European" sign (according to the Geneva Agreement).
2. Some questions are very detailed (like as the requirements of a standard) and maybe superfluous regarding to the main object of this project (harmonisation for reaching better traffic safety).
Sweden: Most important should be to harmonize the system for the use of destinations. There are a number of different systems in use today which could be very confusing to drivers who are accustomed to their system when driving abroad.
125 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.3. Road markings
Colour of road markings 2.3.1. Do you use only one colour for permanent road markings?
Six of the 18 countries (33%) who completed the marking questionnaire only used one colour for permanent road markings. These countries were: Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Poland, Latvia and Sweden. All other responding countries used more than one colour.
2.3.2. What is the main colour used for permanent road markings?
The dominant colour was white in all countries.
2.3.3. Other colours used for road markings?
• Two of the 18 countries used no other colours; these countries were Germany and Ireland. • Six of the 18 countries also used blue marking; these countries included Spain and the Netherlands • Four of the 18 countries also used red marking; these countries included France and the United Kingdom. • 13 of the 18 countries (72%) also used other colours; the vast majority of these were yellow or orange for parking restrictions or temporary road works. The use of green for cycle lane demarcation was mentioned (e.g. The Netherlands).
Longitudinal markings consisting of continuous line 2.3.4. Does this type of road marking means that vehicles are not permitted to cross or straddle the line?
• 16 of the 18 responding countries said that vehicles are not permitted to cross a longitudinal marking. • Five of the 18 responding countries said that vehicles are not permitted to straddle a longitudinal marking. • Three of the 18 countries gave other meanings; these were: o UK: Edge of carriageway - not an offence to cross the longitudinal marking, but it is an offence to cross solid line bordering chevrons. o Denmark: If the line is a centre line it is not permitted to cross the line; If the line is an edge line it is permitted to cross the line if passing a left turning vehicle. o Finland: Slow traffic may cross edge line.
2.3.5. What makes up continuous longitudinal road markings?
• 14 of the 18 countries said these were made of single or double lines. • Three of the 18 countries said these were made of single lines (Belgium, Cyprus, France). • One of the 18 countries said these were made of double lines (Denmark).
126 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Longitudinal markings consisting of broken lines 2.3.6. Do different types of road markings, made of broken lines, exist in term of length of lines, gaps and ratio between gaps and lines?
All countries said that different types of road markings exist
2.3.7. Does the dimensions of the broken lines depend on the speed limit and on the type of roads?
15 of 18 countries depend on speed and/or road type. • 8 countries said the dimensions depend on the speed limit. • 11 countries said the dimensions depend on the type of road.
The main differences were between road in built up areas, roads outside built up areas, and motorways (as reported, for example, by Hungary).
2.3.8. Does a classification system of these different types of broken lines exist?
All countries reported that a classification system of these different types of broken lines does exist.
2.3.9. Describe the classification system used in your country for longitudinal markings made of broken lines?
A variety of systems were mentioned, these included:
Austria: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes On demarcation motorway 6 12 e.g. Lanes main roads demarcation outside city 6 9 Warning e.g. Lanes line on demarcation main roads 6 1.5
Line to the exit or entry-lane to e.g. Edge lines motorway 4 2 at intersection on main e.g. Edge lines roads 2 1
127 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Cyprus: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation RM05 1.0 3.0 e.g. Lanes demarcation RM07 3.0 1.0 e.g. Lanes demarcation RM08 6.0 3.0 e.g. Lanes demarcation RM12 3.0 9.0 e.g. Lanes demarcation RM13 3.0 6.0
Denmark: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation A and B 5 10 e.g. Lanes demarcation C 2.5 5 Warning lines A and B 10 5 C 5 2.5
Estonia: Name of class of broken Length of lines Gap between Type of marking lines (m) two lines (m) Broken lines with short V<=50km/h; 1.0 3.0 Lanes demarcation stripes V>50; 3.0 9.0 Broken lines with long V<=50km/h; 3.0 1.0 Lanes demarcation stripes V>50; 9.0 3.0 Broken lines with equal stripes and Edge lines gaps 0.5; 1.0; 2.0 0.5; 1.0; 2.0 Broken Lines separating dec. lines with speed up lanes from wide the main lanes stripes 1 3
128 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Finland: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation, (This term is understood as centre line) "road" 3 9 e.g. Lanes demarcation "street" 1 3 yellow warning line 9 3 Road bus stop 3 3 Street bus e.g. Edge lines stop 1 1
France: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) Lanes demarcation T1 3 10 Lanes demarcation T'1 1.5 5 Lanes demarcation T3 3 1.33 Edge lines T2 3 3.5 Edge lines T'3 20 6
129 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Germany: Gap Name of Length between class of of lines two lines Type of marking broken lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation (1) On 6 12 Motorway e.g. Lanes demarcation (2) main 4 8 roads outside city e.g. Lanes demarcation (3) warning 4 2 line on main roads e.g. Edge lines line to the 6 6 Exit or Entry-Lane on Motorway e.g. Edge lines at 3 3 intersection on main roads
Hungary: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) Lanes demarcation: - 6.0 12.0 motorway road out of built-up 4.0 8.0 area road in built-up area 2.0 4.0
- Lanes demarcation: 1.5 1.5 bicycle lanes; turning lanes in intersection
Before continuous line or sites of limited 6.0 3.0 sight: motorway - 4.0 2.0 road out of built-up 2.0 1.0 area road in built-up area
130 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Ireland: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation 4/8 4 8 e.g. Lanes demarcation 2/2 2 2 Edge lines 2/2 2 2 Centre Lines 1/5 1 5 Centre Lines 3/3 3 3 Centre Lines 3/9 3 9
Latvia: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) Divides traffic flow driving in opposite 1.0 - 3.0 3.0 - 9.0 directions on roads with V<50km/h V<50km/h two or more lanes 3.0 - 4.0 9.0 - 12.0 922 V>50km/h V>50km/h Divides vehicles driving the opposite way and 3.0 - 6.0 1.0 - 2.0 warns the approach of V<50km/h V<50km/h continuous lines 6.0 - 9.0 2.0 - 3.0 923 V>50km/h V>50 km/h Marks lines within junctions 925 0.5 0.5 2.0 - 6.0 1.0 - 3.0 Marks edge lanes where V<50 km/h V<50km/h you may stay and stop 6.0 - 8.0 3.0 - 4.0 924 V>50km/h V>50km/h Divides the border between entrance/exit lane and road eg Edge lines 926 1.0 3.0
131 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
The Netherlands: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation 3-9 3 9 e.g. Lanes demarcation 1-3 1 3 e.g. Lanes demarcation 9-3 9 3 Edge lines on distributor roads 3-3 3 3 Edge lines on access roads 1-3 1 3
Portugal:
Name of Gap class of Length of between 2 Type of marking broken lines lines (m) lines (m) Lane demarcation (motorways) M2 (LBT) 4 10 Lane demarcation (main roads) M2 (LBT) 4 10 lane demarcation: Pre-warning of continuous line or danger (motorways) M4 (LBTa) 10 4 lane demarcation: Pre-warning of continuous line or danger (Main roads) M4 (LBTa) 5 2 Lane demarcation: M6 (LBTg) entrance / exit ramps / M6 (motorways) (LBTg) 3 4
Lane demarcation: M6 (LBTg) entrance / exit ramps / M6 (main roads) (LBTg) 1.5 2
132 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Slovakia: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) e.g. Lanes demarcation all roads 1.5 3 e.g. Lanes demarcation all roads 3 6 e.g. Lanes demarcation all roads 6 12 e.g. Edge lines 0.5 0.5 e.g. Edge lines 1.5 1.5
Sweden: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) outside e.g. Lanes built-up demarcation area 3 9 outside e.g. Lanes built-up demarcation area 9 3 outside e.g. Lanes built-up demarcation area 3 3 e.g. Edge lines 1 2
UK: Name of Gap class of between broken Length of two lines Type of marking lines lines (m) (m) Diagram Warning lines 1004 4 2 Diagram Warning lines 1004.1 6 3 Diagram e.g. Lanes demarcation 1005 1 5 Diagram e.g. Lanes demarcation 1005.1 2 7 Diagram Centre lines 1008 2 4 Diagram Centre lines 1008.1 3 6
Clearly this is an area where more harmonisation may be possible.
133 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.3.10. Do you use broken lines to: a) warn of the approach to continuous lines, or b) warn of the approach to another section of road presenting a particular danger?
• 17 of the 18 countries reported using broken lines to warn of the approach to continuous lines (the only country not reporting this was The Netherlands). • 13 countries reported using broken lines to warn of the approach to another section of road presenting a particular danger (the countries not reporting this were Finland, Germany and The Netherlands).
2.3.11. Do you use longitudinal markings consisting of a continuous line adjacent to a broken line?
17 of the 18 responding countries reported use this, the exception being Latvia.
2.3.12. Does it always mean that drivers shall take account only of the line that appears on their side (the closest side)?
17 of the 18 responding countries confirmed this (the only exception was Estonia; they said the line may be crossed from the side of the broken line. If the solid line is nearer the driver it may be crossed only on completing an overtaking or obstruction rounding manoeuvre).
2.3.13. What are the meanings of such markings and rules that the driver shall follow?
Other comments included: • Germany: A continuous edge line between lane and broad hard shoulder is allowed to cross for slow vehicles. • Slovakia: Overtaking rule - a driver having a broken line on his side can overtake. • UK: Drivers may cross the line nearer to them when it is broken, but not when it is continuous.
Marking of edge lines 2.3.14. Do you use road markings to mark the nearside of carriageways?
• Six of 18 responding countries said they always use road markings to mark the nearside of carriageways. • 11 countries said they mark the nearside only for certain types of road. • Only one country, Latvia said that they never mark the nearside of carriageways.
2.3.15. Do lanes reserved for certain categories of vehicle exist? 16 of 18 responding countries said that lanes were reserved for certain categories of vehicles (Latvia and Portugal was the only two countries that do not use these type of lanes).
134 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.3.16. Which categories of vehicle may have reserved lanes?
A variety of vehicle categories were mentioned: trucks (mentioned by 2 countries), slow vehicles (mentioned by 3), other types (e.g. buses, trams, cycles and taxis) were mentioned by most countries.
2.3.17. Is the marking of such lanes different from other continuous or broken lines?
11 countries said such lanes were different. For example, in Estonia and Sweden both mentioned that they were wider.
Lane Width 2.3.18. How wide are your standard lanes on Motorways?
This varied from 3.5m (e.g. Spain, the Netherlands) to 3.75m (e.g. Slovakia, Hungary and Poland). The average was around 3.65m
2.3.19. How wide are your standard lanes on other main roads?
This varied from 2.95m (e.g. Poland) to 3.65m (e.g. UK). The average was 3.25- 3.5m.
Transverse road markings
Stop Line 2.3.20. Do you always use a marking to indicate a STOP?
• 16 of the 18 countries said they always use a marking to indicate a STOP. • Two said they did not always use a marking to indicate a STOP (these were Ireland and Estonia). • No countries said they never used a marking in this situation.
2.3.21. In which circumstances is STOP not indicated with a marking?
• Estonia: STOP is not indicated on unpaved roads (gravel). It's indicated on paved roads when local conditions require it. • Ireland: Residential estates and low volume roads there may be no markings.
2.3.22. Do you use a continuous transverse line to indicate a STOP?
All countries said they used a continuous transverse line to indicate a STOP.
135 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.3.23. Describe the type of line you use to sign a STOP
The following were mentioned: Finland: Ranges of width from 0.3-.5m, most common 0.4m Slovakia and Portugal: width 0.5m
2.3.24. Is the width of the marking line constant?
15 of the 18 responding countries said the marking line was constant. The exceptions were: the Netherlands, Ireland and Finland.
2.3.25. Which criteria(s) specify the width of the marking line?
The following were mentioned: • Ireland: 200mm urban, 250mm rural, 250mm Major urban road, 300mm railway crossing. • The Netherlands: If combined with sign B7 (STOP octagon), width is 0.3m. Otherwise 0.2m • Finland: According to the consideration.
2.3.26. If available, please enclose figures showing different STOP marking situations.
Figures were enclosed by several countries, other information included:
• Finland: before a pedestrian cross(ing) 3 - 5m distance.
• France: STOP markings are not necessarily in the continuation of the shoulder of the priority road but located in a way that allows the better visibility of the traffic on this road without perturb it. The STOP is preceded by a longitudinal marking (10 to 20m and width 2u) for a road with two directions of traffic. This line can be deleted or replaced with broken lines when the road width is not large enough.
• Ireland: The word STOP is also marked in many cases.
• Portugal: STOP marking M8 is implemented at mandatory stop locations imposed by other type of signs. This marking maybe complemented with the word "STOP" on the road pavement if the mandatory stop is imposed by vertical signs.
Different stop marking situations are shown in Table 36.
136 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 36 - Figures showing different STOP marking situations Country STOP markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
France
Germany
Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
137 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country STOP markings
Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
Transverse line indicating points at which drivers must GIVE WAY 2.3.27. Do you always use a marking to indicate a “GIVE WAY”?
• 10 of the 18 countries who responded said they always use a marking to indicate a GIVE WAY. • 8 of the 18 countries who responded said that they do not always use a marking to indicate a GIVE WAY.
138 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.3.28. In which circumstances “GIVE WAY” are not indicated with a marking?
Circumstances given for non-use of GIVE WAY markings were: • On lower class roads (Austria). • Only mainly used at roundabouts, less commonly used in other traffic situations (Finland). • If there is a broken edge line, this means already "GIVE WAY" for the non-priority traffic (Germany). • On lower traffic volume roads (Ireland). • At the intersection with a lower class road, for example a road from a small village (Latvia).
2.3.29. How do you mark locations at which drivers must GIVE WAY?
• Traverse broken line was used by 11 of the 18 countries who replied. • Triangles marked side by side on the ground were used by 9 of the 18 countries. • Other markings were mentioned by three countries. The question below describes this in more detail.
2.3.30. Describe the type of line used to mark a GIVE WAY
Other types of markings mentioned by the three countries were: • One advance warning triangle in middle of the lane (Finland). • By a full line (STOP line) and 1 triangle on the ground (Slovakia). • A large triangle painted on the road slightly ahead of the crossing (The Netherlands).
2.3.31. Are the dimensions constant for marking lines made of broken lines?
Only one country (Ireland) stated that their dimensions were not constant.
2.3.32. Which criteria(s) specify the dimensions of the marking line?
Ireland stated that their dimensions were: 200mm wide, 1m line and 1m Gap in most cases (500mm line 500mm gap on narrow roads)
2.3.33. What are the dimensions of transverse broken lines?
• The width of lines varied between 0.2- 0.5m. The narrower ones were in Ireland and the UK. Wider were in Hungary, France, Poland and Germany • The length of lines varied from 0.4- 1m. The shorter ones were in Portugal, the longer ones in Ireland and Hungary. • The gap between 2 lines varied between 0.2m (Latvia) to 1m (Ireland) • The ratio between lines and gaps varied from 2:1 (e.g. Austria, Cyprus) to 1:1 (e.g. France, Ireland).
139 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.3.34. Are the dimensions constant for marking lines made of triangles?
In those countries that used triangles, 7 out of 10 said they were constant. They were not always constant in Finland, Latvia and Portugal.
2.3.35. Which criteria(s) specify the dimensions of the marking line? (Specify these dimensions)
• In Finland the criteria were: land width, from side to side. • In Portugal, the depended on the speed limit of the road.
2.3.36. What are the dimensions of the triangles and the spaces between triangles?
In those countries that use triangles: • The length of the base was fairly constant (0.5-0.6m) • The height of the triangle was 0.6-0.9m. Smaller heights were in Denmark and Finland. Larger heights were in Austria and Estonia. • the gap between two adjacent triangles ranged from 0.2m (Belgium) to 0.5m (Denmark, the Netherlands).
Overall, a great number of small differences exist between different countries regarding how they mark ‘GIVE WAY’ situations.
Examples of different GIVE WAY marking situations are shown in Table 37
Table 37 - Figures showing different GIVE WAY markings situations
Country GIVE WAY markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
140 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country GIVE WAY markings
France
Germany
141 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country GIVE WAY markings
Greece Hungary
Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
142 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country GIVE WAY markings
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
143 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Normal road sections marking
Marking of two-lanes roads
1
2.3.37. Is the centre line always marked with a road marking?
• Four of the 18 countries that reported that they always marked the centre line. • 14 of the 18 reported that there were some situations where the centre line was not marked. • No countries reported that the centre line was never marked.
2.3.38. Which criteria(s) are used to specify if a centre line needs to be marked?
• Width of road – 11 countries responding mentioned this to be a factor.
• Amount of traffic- three of the countries responding mentioned this to be a factor. These countries were Estonia, Finland and France.
• Meteorological conditions (presence of fog for example): mentioned by one country (France).
• Other criteria(s)- mentioned by six countries. These criteria included: Road geometry (eg visibility distances) and type of road (e.g. TERN).
2.3.39. Are the marking standardised?
The width of markings are standardised (within a permissible range) in all countries that responded.
2.3.40. What is the width of the marking (continuous or broken lines)?
The width varied from 0.1m (in many countries, e.g. Spain) up to a maximum of 0.24m (in Poland).
144 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Marking of three-lanes roads: 1. Demarcation of Lanes for the Two Directions
1
2
2.3.41. Are the lanes always marked with a road marking?
• 17 of 18 countries that reported that they always marked this lane. • No country reported that there were some situations where the lane was not marked. • One country reported that the lane was never marked. This was Latvia (although it should be noted that there are no motorways in Latvia)
2.3.42. Which criteria(s) are used to specify if the demarcation lanes need to be marked?
As mentioned above, virtually all countries stated that lanes in this road type are marked. However, factors that included the marking still included traffic density, weather and road categorisation.
In addition, France mentioned that sometimes flexible beacons are used to reinforce the road markings.
2.4.43. Are the marking standardised?
The width of markings are standardised (within a permissible range) in 15 of the 17 countries that answered this question (exceptions were Poland and the UK).
2.4.44. What is the width of the marking (continuous or broken lines)?
The width varied from 0.1m (in many countries, e.g. Estonia) up to a maximum of 0.3m (in Sweden).
2.4.45. Do you use additional road equipments for the demarcation of lanes for the two directions (e.g. rail – double barrier)?
Half the countries who responded (8 out of 16) reported using additional road equipment. This included barriers (Sweden, Portugal), Double barrier and Median strip (Estonia) and pilot trials with wire rope barrier (Ireland).
145 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Marking of three-lanes roads: 2. Centre Lines
2.4.46. Is the centre line always marked with a road marking?
• 16 of the 17 countries reported that they always marked the lane. • One country (Sweden) reported that there were some situations where the lane was not marked. • None reported that the lane was never marked.
2.4.47. Which criteria are used to specify if a centre line needs to be marked?
As mentioned above, virtually all countries stated that lanes in this road type are marked. However, factors still included width of road, traffic density, and weather.
2.4.48. Are the marking standardised?
The width of markings are standardised (within a permissible range) in all countries that responding.
2.4.49. What is the width of the marking (continuous or broken lines)?
The width varied from 0.1m (in many countries, e.g. Denmark) up to a maximum of 0.2m (in the Netherlands).
146 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Marking of reverse three-lanes roads
1
1
2.4.50. Do you have these types of roads in your country?
Only two of the 18 countries had this type of road- these were the UK and France.
2.4.51. Demarcation of lanes: Are the lanes always marked with a road marking?
Both countries (UK, France) said that they always marked the lanes.
2.4.52. Are the marking standardised?
The width of markings are standardised (within a permissible range) in both countries.
2.4.53. What is the width of the marking (continuous or broken lines)?
The width was from 0.1m - 0.15m (in the UK) and 0.12m in France.
147 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Dual-carriageways: 1. Separation between the carriageways
2
1
2
2.4.54. Separation between the two carriageways: Is the separation between the carriageways always marked with road markings?
• 15 of 18 countries that reported that they always marked this area. • 2 of 18 (Belgium and Estonia) reported that there were some situations where the area was not marked. • One country (UK) reported that the area was never marked. The UK said that their Regulation 4 defines a dual carriageway road as a road that comprises a central reservation. The question of a road marking does not therefore arise.
2.4.55. Which criteria(s) are used to specify if the separation between the carriageways needs to be marked?
Criteria included lane width (Belgium) and type of road categorisation (Slovakia).
2.4.56. How do you mark the separation?
Many variations were mentioned, these were:
• Austria: Double line (width: 0.15m each, distance between 0.15m).
• Belgium: Continuous line with width of 0.15m.
• Cyprus: Ideally with a median reserve. The rest with a continuous line, width 0.2(m).
• Denmark: Double continuous line.
• Estonia: Double continuous lines, 0.1m width each.
• Finland: Double barrier line means two continuous yellow lines.
148 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
• France: For normal sections the separation is at least marked by a continuous line (width = 37.5cm). When the distance between edge lines is between 13m and 13.5m, the separation is marked with a central area enclosed between two continuous lines (width 22.5cm and spaced at least of 42cm). According to the available space, some hatching can be added. When the distance between edge lines exceeds 13.5m it is possible to create a physical separation between the two carriageways (central reservation). This central reservation is delimited by continuous road markings (width = 22.5m) and filled with hatchings.
• Germany: There will be a double line (width: 0.12m each, distance between: 0.12m.
• Hungary: Separation is made by single continuous line at built-up area and shall be made by double continuous line out of built up area.
• Ireland: Continuous ribbed line.
• Latvia: continuous line on both sides of the road.
• The Netherlands: continuous white line.
• Poland: Double Continuous lines
• Portugal: If no physical separation (rail, double barrier), then a double continuous line (lines separation by 0.10m) is applied.
• Slovakia: double continuous line.
• Spain: The left lane has a left limit continuous line with the following characteristics: official classification type M-2.5; width = 0.2m.
• Sweden: continuous 0.30m line on both sides if it is a barrier between, otherwise it can be marked 0.15 line, gap 0.15m and line 0.15m
• UK: Continuous white line either 0.1m or 0.15m wide.
2.4.57. Do you use additional road equipment for the demarcation of lanes for the two directions (e.g. rail – double barrier)?
14 of the 18 responding countries reported that they used additional road equipment. Countries that did not use it were: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark and Germany.
Types of additional road equipment were generally physical barriers and/or median strips; however the following were also employed: • Ireland: Rail or wire rope or kerbed median. • The Netherlands: green markings between white lines (0.20 - 0.80m wide). • Portugal: Cat’s eyes.
149 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Dual-carriageways: 2. Centre Lines
2.4.58. Centre Lines: Are the lanes always marked with a road marking?
All countries reported that they always marked these lanes. No countries reported that they only ‘sometimes’ or ‘never’ marked these lanes.
2.4.59. Which criteria(s) are used to specify if the lanes need to be marked?
As mentioned above, all countries stated that lanes in this road type are marked. However, factors still included width of road, and type of the road.
2.4.60. Are the marking standardised?
The width of markings are standardised (within a permissible range) in all countries that responding.
2.4.61. What is the width of the marking (continuous or broken lines)?
The width varied from 0.1m (in many countries, e.g. Cyprus) up to a maximum of 0.15m (in Belgium).
Entrance Ramps
2.4.62.: Please attach figures of markings used to sign an “entrance ramp” (slip road) on dual carriageways and/or a comment how it is designed.
A range of figures were attached or described, these include:
• Austria: Similar to motorways.
• Belgium: See motorway.
• Cyprus: According to the Geometric Design Standards.
• Demark: Merging is the GIVE WAY rule in Denmark.
• Estonia: Wide continuous or wide broken lines (0.2m) before entrance ramp, separates deceleration lane from the main lanes of a roadway.
• Finland: similar to motorway (Fig. 4) but edge line is 0.2m
• France: The entrance ramp is always marked (separation between main road and entrance ramp) with a road marking made of broken lines (type T2) with a width of 37.5cm. If the main road has the same number of lanes before and after the entrance ramp, the line starts at a distance L/6 (see 5.4.6) till the end of the entrance ramp. When the number of lanes is higher after the intersection than
150 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
before, the line starts at the point where the width of the "feather edge" is 1.5m. The length of this line is at least L (see 5.4.6 L=117 m for speed approach between 80 km/h and 90 km/h, L= 156m for a speed approach of 100 km/h).
• Germany: The right edge line of the ramp continuous as the edge line of the main road.
• Hungary: No special entrance ramp markings. They are designed as normal road sections.
• Sweden: 3m marking 3 m gap and width 0.3m
Examples of markings used to sign an entrance ramp for motorways or dual carriageways are shown in Table 38.
Table 38 - Markings used to sign an entrance ramp (dual carriageways and motorways)
Country Entrance ramp markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
Finland
France
151 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Entrance ramp markings
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
Poland
152 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Entrance ramp markings
Portugal
Dual carriageway
Motorway
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Line type M-1.7 is used in roads with speed limit under 100 km/h. For highways (the only road with a maximum speed limit over 100 km/h) the line type used is M-1.6.
Sweden United Kingdom
153 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.63. Exit Ramp: Please attach figures of markings used to sign an “exit ramp” (slip road) on dual carriageways and/or a comment how it is designed.
The descriptions of exit ramp were generally similar to entrance ramp (described above). The main different explanation was for France:
• The exit ramp is always marked (separation between main road and exit ramp) with a road marking made of broken lines (type T2) with a width of 37.5cm. This line starts at the beginning of the exit ramp until the last point where the driver is allowed to use the exit ramp. For the exit with lanes affectation, the road marking is made of broken lines (type T2 and width 37.5cm). This line starts with the first directional pre-sign gantry and stops at the level of directional sign gantry. After this point the line of demarcation between the main roads and the exit ramp is made of continuous line (width 37.5cm).
Examples of markings used to sign an exit ramp on dual carriageways and motorways are shown in Table 39 below:
Table 39 - Markings used to sign an exit ramp (dual carriageways and motorways)
Country Exit ramp markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
Finland
154 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Exit ramp markings
France
Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
Poland
155 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Exit ramp markings
Portugal
Dual carriageway
Motorway
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Line type M-1.7 is used in roads with speed limit under 100 km/h. For highways (the only road with a maximum speed limit over 100 km/h) the line type used is M-1.6.
Sweden United Kingdom
156 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Motorways: 1. Separation between the two carriageways
2
1
2
It should be noted that there are no motorways in Latvia and Estonia
2.4.64. Separation between the two carriageways: Is the separation between the carriageways always marked with road markings?
Nine of the 15 countries that responded to this question said it was always marked, and six said it was never marked. Those countries who said it was never marked were: Belgium, Austria, the UK, Slovakia, Germany and Hungary.
2.4.65. Which criteria(s) are used to specify if the separation between the carriageways need to be marked?
For those countries who said the area was never marked, the reason appears to be that the two carriageways are always separated by a separating strip.
2.4.66. How do you mark the separation?
As question 2.4.56, many variations were mentioned, these were: • Cyprus: Edge lines, 0.2(m) wide. • Finland: Edge line (mainly profiled), always a central reserve or rail. • France: The separation between the two carriageways is made with a central reservation which can be made using different solutions (crash barrier) but in any case the central reservation is delimited by continuous longitudinal lines (width 22.5cm). • Ireland: Continuous ribbed line. • The Netherlands: Continuous white line. • Poland: Double continuous line • Portugal: 'Physical separation: Rail-double barrier or central trench, Edge marks: M2 (LBT). • Spain: The two directions of traffic are separated by a dedicated strip not used for traffic. The left lane has a left limit continuous line with the following characteristics: official classification type M-2.5; width = 0.2m. • Sweden: 0.3m continuous line used both on left and right edge.
157 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.67. Do you use additional road equipments for the demarcation of lanes for the two directions (e.g. rail – double barrier)?
All the countries who responded to this question (13 out of 13) reported that they used additional road equipment.
Types of additional road equipment were generally the same as reported in question 2.4.57. These were largely physical barriers (single or double; steel or new jersey type concrete barrier), divided green line and/or median strips.
Motorways: 2. Centre Lines
2.4.68. Centre Lines: Are the lanes always marked with a road marking?
Almost all countries, 14 out of 15 who responded said these lanes were marked.
The only country who reported that their lanes were never marked in this situation was Slovakia- the accuracy of this statement is unknown.
2.4.69. Are the marking standardised?
The width of markings are standardised in 12 of the 14 countries that responded (the exceptions were UK and Poland- but these were within permissible ranges).
2.4.70. What is the width of the marking (continuous or broken lines)?
The width varied from 0.1m (in many countries, e.g. Finland) up to a maximum of 0.24m (in Poland).
Entrance Ramps
2.4.71. Entrance Ramp: Please attach figures of markings used to sign an “entrance ramp” on motorways and/or a comment how it is designed.
A range of figures were described. Generally the countries reported that these were the same as for the entrance ramps for dual carriageways (question 2.4.62).
2.4.72. Exit Ramp: Please attach figures of markings used to sign an “exit ramp” on motorways and/or a comment how it is designed.
A range of figures were described. Generally the countries reported that these were the same as for the exit ramps for dual carriageways (question 2.4.63).
158 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Hard-Shoulders
2.4.73. Please describe how the markings are made separating the hard shoulder from the lanes of traffic?
A variety of responses were received regarding hard shoulder marking, these were: • Austria: There is an edge-line in a width of 0.2m. • Belgium: continuous line with width of 0.3m. • Cyprus: Edge lines, 0.2(m) wide. • Finland: Edge lines, 0.2(m) wide. • Germany: There will be an edge line (continuous lines) at the right lane side: motorway width = 0,30 m; main road width = 0.25 m ( if the hard-shoulder => 1,0 m see also 6.1.1 otherwise 0.12m). There is no edge line at the right side of the (paved) hard-shoulder. • Hungary: Hard shoulder is separated from the traffic lanes by continuous wide line (edge line). • Ireland: Continuous yellow. • The Netherlands: Continuous line. • Poland: Continuous line, width 0.24m • Portugal: Continuous line. • Slovakia: Edge line. • Spain: The separation can be done with continuous or broken lines depending on the type of road, width of the hard shoulder and other specific conditions of the road. o 1) Highways and motorways: broken line type M-1.11 (roads with speed limit > 100 km/h and hard shoulder of at least 1.5 m). o 2) Highways and motorways exceptions: a continuous line will be used in the following cases: a) near and crossing bridges and tunnels; b) before and after exit and entry ramps (100 m before and after); c) in exit and entry ramps; d) in road sections in which the importance or potential danger in the hard shoulder needs to be remarked. o 3) Conventional roads (speed limit < 100 km/h) with hard shoulder of at least 1.5 m: continuous line. o 4) Conventional roads (speed limit < 100 km/h) with hard shoulder under 1.5 m: broken line type M-1.12, except in the following cases: a) near and crossing bridges and tunnels; b) before and after exit and entry ramps (100 m before and after); c) in exit and entry ramps; d) in road sections in which the importance or potential danger in the hard shoulder needs to be remarked. • Sweden: Continuous line. • UK: 0.2m wide, supplemented with red reflecting road studs normally at 18 metre centres.
2.4.74. Are hard shoulders marked? (not including the road edge line)
• One country out of 15 said hard shoulders were marked often (Ireland). • Three of 15 countries said hard shoulders were marked rarely (UK, Spain and France).
159 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
• 11 of 15 countries said hard shoulders were never marked. 2.4.75. For which situations are they marked and how?
Few comments were received regarding situations for using hard shoulders, these were:
• France: the hard shoulder is marked with hatchings when the hard shoulder will be deleted for further section of the road (for example when the width of the hard- shoulder becomes less than 2m). • Spain: Only in those cases where they have or lead to a gravel emergency brake area. • UK: Hatching indicates the termination of the hard shoulder.
Clearly there is a fairly large amount of variation in the use of markings for hard shoulders.
Intersections and roundabouts
2.4.76. Please enclose plans/drawings which describe how road marking have to be designed to warn of an intersection on major roads and comment about it if needed
Figure and comments were received from several countries. Figures enclosed were as follows and shown in Table 40:
Table 40 - Markings to warn of intersection of major roads
Country Major road intersection warning markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
160 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Major road intersection warning markings
Finland
France
Germany
161 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Major road intersection warning markings
Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
Poland
162 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Major road intersection warning markings
Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Sweden United Kingdom
The comments included:
• France: For the road that has the right way, there is no perturbation of the type of road marking that was used for centre line before the intersection. For the road that has not the right way, we use a transverse marking (STOP or GIVE WAY). For intersection between main roads and exit or entrance ramp, the separation between the lanes is always marked with road markings made of broken lines (type T2 and width 5.u). • Germany: There will be always a warning line and a continuous line adjacent to a broken line.
163 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
• Hungary: In Hungary there are no complex plans prescribed for an intersection. The concerning regulations prescribe only how to apply the singular design elements (signs, markings etc.) when designing an intersection. • Ireland: 'There are several treatments for rural road junctions depending on the importance of the intersection. • The Netherlands: No road markings warning of an intersection or roundabout • UK: On single carriageway roads, the normal centre line marking will change from diagram 1008/1008.1 to diagram 1004/1004.1 (ratio of mark to gap increased from 0.5 to 2.0).
2.4.77. Please enclose plans/drawings which describe how road marking have to be designed for a roundabout on major roads and comment about it below
Figures and comments were received from several countries. Figures enclosed were as follows and are shown in Table 41:
Table 41 - Markings for a roundabout on major roads
Country Roundabout markings
Austria
Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark
164 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Roundabout markings
Estonia Finland
France
Germany
Greece Hungary Ireland Italy
165 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Roundabout markings
Latvia A
N
O
D
A
M
1
5 0
) 1 7
7 GA
Ī m
A6
3 R
MADONA
1 ( 8 5
0
5 3
7 3
A 7 7 6
3 0
2
7 2 A 7 G
9
0 Ī
6 1
2 6 1 0 R
E A 2 0
M S 6 8 AS
2
1 0
0 L
A E
0 2
I Ņ S
S 2 3
6
”
L P
7 L
I
I 6
E
4
m
7 V 2
T
0 P P 0
A
7 4
0 AVI
0
S
A 1
1 V
S m
B
5 Ļ
3
A 0 K R 300M
1 G
6 1
A
2 E
0 P
E
G 0 I
2 8
U J
K V
0 U 1
4 I
R A
1 Ē
2 7
A 9 S A
A
0
2 „
J D
D S s
L t
6 1 I K L
MADONA I P uk
KARJERS „AIVIEKSTE” KARJERS E
P d
V 7
R a
A B 0
P37 A 0
9
G Vi
4 G A
G 1 Ī 0
3
5 O K 4
R U 4
6
9
02 Ē 8
3 A 0
1
5 6 J
0 7 2 4 D
2 0 A 5 1 9 6 4 A
P 5 1
0 0 3
6 5 1 7
9 0
701
1 2 DAUGAVPILS 2
2 9 0
6
0 0
0 7 J 8
4 0
0
1 8 2 2 3
Ē 4 4
0 2 9 5 m
KABPILS A 0
1 m A6 N 5
3 0 9
O 1 5
0
4 7 D A
1 A 6 0 G M Ī 0 9
R 2 0
3 412 4 0
1
2
0
6
)
9 0
m
4 7 6 0
5
2 R
1 ĪG 4
(
4 A 1 0 0
0 1 9
9 2 1 3 2 0
5 2 9 7
A
N
) O
7 8 7
3 m
D
3 7 9 3
( 7 A
0 A P 2 K 3 M
A G 9
2
6 Ī 6
P R
E A 3 J R A A E 7 5 6 R
0 ) S M 1 0 0 M „ S
7 S m O 1 0
A A L
A 4 0 3
8 R I M L K I 7 E
R V 6 9 I
4
Ī D I A 2 9
E 2 A P
G R R
0 P (
2 O 0
K 2 J
E D V
A E
0 1
0 N S 7 B R
6 T O 905
4 412 A 2
3 S
A E 7 A
0 N
„
9 ” 8 G
9 3 A 4
4 A K 6
5 I
7 V
0 1 9 2 U
4 I Ē
E A 4 4
1 9 2
K A 2 J
9 0 7 S
MADONA 42 MADONA
0 T D
7
E 7 5
7 ”
0 0
0 5
2
3 9
A 0
E
6 41 2 7 m
2 0 0 2 5 0 0 0 412 2 m
7 705 4 7 7
1 1 2 4
3 0
0 )
8 6
0 m
1 9
1 6 05 0 2
2 1 (
) 0
2
m
9
0
0
1
5 (
0 0
2 9 9
R A M Ī 6 412 G A D A P O 3 7 N 3 0 A 0 M
„ K A A I V R I E J K E R S T S E ”
7
0
1
1 0
8 2
m 0
k
6
0 6 0 ,
3 2 4 0 4 9 3 9
4 1 0 M A R D ĪG O 907 A A N 6 A ) J m Ē 0 D K (3 A A 0 U B 2 30 G P 9 A I 0 V L M P S IL A S 6
S ) A m Ņ 0 I 5 V ( A 3 Ļ 2 P 9
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands
166 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Roundabout markings
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK
167 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
The comments included:
• France: When the central reservation of a roundabout is physically is impassable, it is always marked with road markings made of continuous lines (width 3.u). When it is physically passable (for small roundabout), the marking is made of broken lines (type T’3 and width 3.u). When needed, the different lanes of the roundabout are marked with broken lines (type T1 or T’1 and width 2.u). At the approach of the roundabout, edge road markings are made of broken lines (type T’3 and width 3.u). Inside the roundabout the edge lines (when it does exist) are marked with continuous road markings. • Portugal: No detailed plans provided in national regulation. Attachments provided (roundabouts01.jpg; roundabouts02.jpg) are part of technical studies and are not included in national regulations. • Spain: There are no official plans or drawings for roundabouts paintings. The general rule says that the marking limiting the roundabout will be a continuous line of the type used in the road where the roundabout is. In general, any line used in a roundabout will be of the same type of those used in the road where the roundabout is.
Road markings for particular situations
Range of vision and definitions
2.4.78. Do you use the concept of range of vision to define when continuous lines are needed in order to prohibit the use of the carriageway reserved for oncoming traffic?
16 of 17 responding countries used the concept of range of vision. The only exception to this is Poland; however the accuracy of this statement is unknown.
2.4.79. Which concept do you use to define when continuous lines are needed in order to prohibit the use of the carriageway reserved for oncoming traffic?
Only a limited number of responses were received to this question, they were:
• Finland: If range vision is below a defined threshold then a continuous line is used. • Estonia: When visibility is restricted in the long section of the road (crests, hills).
2.4.80. The Vienna Agreement (1968) defines the range of the vision M as “the distance at which an object 1m above the surface of the carriageways can by seen by an observer on the road whose eyes is also 1m above the carriageway’’. Do you use the same definition of the range of vision in your country?
10 of 17 countries who responded used this exact definition. The other definitions are given in the question below.
168 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.81. Give the definition used in your country for this purpose?
Other definitions were: • Estonia: The distance at which an object 0.2m above the surface of the carriageway can be seen by an observer on the road whose eyes are 1.1m above the carriageway. • Finland: same but height is 1.1m. • Ireland: 1.05m for object and observer. • The Netherlands: the distance at which an object 0.2m above the surface of the carriageways can be seen by an observer on the road whose eyes are 1.1m above the carriageway • Portugal: The distance at which an object 1.2m above the surface can be seen by an observer on the road whose eyes are 1m above the carriageway. • Sweden: We use 1.1m above the surface and 1.1m above the carriageway. • UK: Visibility distance is defined as the maximum distance at which an object 1.05m above the carriageway can be seen by an observer at the same height, taking account of vertical as well as horizontal curvature.
2.4.82. The choice of range of values is linked to the approach speed. The Vienna Agreement (1968) defines approach speed as “the speed which 85% of the vehicles do not exceed, or the design speed if it is higher”. Do you use the same definition of the approach speed in your country?
11 of 17 countries who responded used this exact definition. The other definitions are given in the question below.
2.4.83. Give the definition used in your country for this purpose?
• Belgium: normally the limit speed (basis speed). • Finland: design speed (or speed limit). • The Netherlands: We always use design speed. • Portugal: For road markings dimensioning purposes not only the design speed should be considered but also the speed that the road conditions actually allow. In this sense, V15 speed corresponds to the speed that only 15% of drivers exceed. • Slovakia: Speed must be adjusted to driver’s aptitude, vehicle condition, weather conditions and other conditions. A driver can drive only at such speed so he would be able to stop at distance of his range of vision. • Sweden: The speed limit on the road.
2.4.84. Give the relationship between the range of vision and the approach speed used in your country?
As will be seen below, a great deal of variation was reported on this metric, the highest and lowest values are reported- with Portugal or the UK generally lowest, and
169 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Estonia or Sweden the highest (although generally inside the recommended values of the Vienna Convention). Table 42 below summarises these results, and how they compare to the recommended values in the Vienna Convention:
Table 42 – Relationship between range of vision and approach speed Speed (km/hr) Lowest value (M) Highest value Recommended (M) values in the Vienna Convention 50 60 (France, 120 (Estonia, 60-120 Germany and Sweden) Portugal) 60 80/90 (Portugal) 160 (Estonia) For 65km/hr: 70 120/100 (Portugal) 200 (Sweden) 90-180 80 120 (UK) 260 (Estonia) 130-260 90 200/140 (Portugal) 320 (Estonia) - 100 150 (UK) 400 (Estonia) 160-320
Pre-signing system
2.4.85. Are continuous lines always preceded by an approach line?
11 of 17 countries reported that continuous lines are always preceded by an approach line. Those countries that did not always use it were: Sweden, Slovakia, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland and Finland.
2.4.86. In which cases are continuous lines not preceded by an approach line?
• Finland: at Islands and Intersections. • Ireland: Most situations. Warning lines only used on approach to a double centre line. • The Netherlands: On two-lane roads, where a continuous line is used in dangerous curves (no overtaking allowed) there is a danger sign next to the road warning of this. When the continuous line marks a separation of directions (such as an exit or junction), approach lines are used. • Slovakia: Never. • Sweden: It depends on the road
2.4.87. What are the types and dimensions of the approach line?
All the responding countries (13 of 13) reported that the types and dimensions of the approach lines were standardised. These were with a variety of broken lines mentioned in questions 2.3.8 and 2.3.9 above.
170 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.88. Is the length of this approach line linked to the approach speed?
Length of this approach line was linked to the approach speed for only 7 of the 16 the countries that responded. The other ways are given in the question below.
2.4.89. Indicate how the length of the approach line is determined.
• Austria: minimum 10pcs of 6m line with 1.5m gap. • Cyprus: Road type (urban or interurban). • Finland: constant 120m, (if used in urban areas then 60m). • Hungary: Specified in fixed value of length: out of built-up area min. 60m, inside built up area min. 30m length. • Ireland: 2 seconds travelled at the 85% speed. • Netherlands: Depends also on number of lanes of motorway and exit, or in case of a junction, the number of lanes in each of the directions. Also depends on the "downstream" layout, taper or no taper. Some common ranges have been mentioned here, but there is no rigid classification. • Spain: M-1.9 is used in roads with speed limit > 60 km/h; M-1.10 is used in roads with speed limit < 60 km/h.
2.4.90. Indicate the line approach length (m) according to the approach speed and the type of road.
Few countries reported data for this question, and the data was quite varied. Table 43 below gives an indication of the range of the data by showing the minimum and maximum speeds reported by countries for speeds 50 and 80 km/h:
Table 43 – Line approach length according to approach speed and type of road
Approach speed (km/h) Two-lanes road (M) Dual-carriageways (M) 50 39 (France) – 39 (France) – 100 – 250 (Netherlands) 100 – 250 (Netherlands) 80 44 (Ireland)- 117 (France) - 150 275 – 400 (Netherlands) (Latvia)
Clearly this is an area where a great deal of variation currently exists.
2.4.91. Do use arrows on the roadway for your pre-signing system?
14 of the 16 countries who responded use arrows on the roadway for their pre- signing system. Countries that do not were: Ireland and Belgium.
2.4.92. How many arrows are used to pre-warn particular sections of road?
171 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
For all the classes of road mentioned (Two Lane Roads, Three Lane Roads, Dual Carriageways and Motorways) the average number was around three arrows.
Some countries used more (for example, Slovakia generally used 5, and The Netherlands used 4-6 on Motorways) and some less (for example, the UK used 1 or 2 on two and three lane roads, and Hungary used less that 3 on all road types).
As such, a wide difference in the use of arrows exists between different EU countries.
2.4.93. Do you use another system (other than approach lines), such as broken lines or arrows, to pre-sign a continuous line?
Three of 15 countries used another system, such as broken lines or arrows, to pre- sign a continuous line. These countries were: Spain, the Netherlands, and Cyprus.
2.4.94. Describe which alternative pre-sign system you use?
• Cyprus use broken lines. • The Netherlands use Sign F1: no overtaking allowed on two lane roads only. • Spain use broken lines of types M-1.9 and M-1.10 depending on the road or road section speed limit. However, the present tendency is to use arrows, as it is considered to be a more intuitive and easier system to be understood by drivers.
Edge lines
2.4.95. Please fill up the table below regarding right and left edge lines according to the relevant road type.
Summaries of responses by countries are shown in Table 44 below:
Table 44 – Use of edge lines according to type of road Reverse Two-lanes Three-lanes three-lanes Dual Type of road road road road carriageway Motorway Yes in nearly Yes in all countries countries (exception who have Nearside[1] Edge Line Yes in all was this road Yes in all Yes in all (Yes/No) countries Portugal) type countries countries Continuous in most Continuous Type of lines countries, in most Continuous (Continuous or Broken) either broken Continuous countries Continuous in most [the Vienna Convention or either type in most that have this in most countries, states that ‘The limits of in others countries, road type, countries, either the carriageway shall (France, either broken either broken either broken broken or preferably be marked by Ireland and or either in or either in or either in either in continuous lines’.] Netherlands) others others others others Width of marking line Ranged from Ranged from Ranged from Ranged from Ranged (m). [the Vienna 0.1- 0.2 in 0.1-0.3 0.15-0.2 0.1-0.3 from 0.1-
172 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Convention states that different (larger width 0.3 the minimum width countries in Sweden) should be 0.1m] Reverse Two-lanes Three-lanes three-lanes Dual Type of road road road road carriageway Motorway Yes in most countries (exceptions Offside[2] Edge Line Germany and Yes in all (Yes/No) Austria) countries Type of lines (Continuous or Broken) [the Vienna Convention states that ‘The limits of the carriageway shall Continuous Continuous preferably be marked by in all in all continuous lines’.] countries countries Width of marking line (m) [the Vienna Ranged from Convention states that 0.1-0.3 Ranged the minimum width (larger width from 0.15- should be 0.1m] in Sweden) 0.3
173 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.96. Please comment the table of questioning 2.4.95.
The following comments were received:
• Germany: o Offside of Dual Carriageway: There is no edge line because there is no separating strip. o Width of Marking Lane: There will be no edge lines if the width of the road is less 5.0 m. The width is 0.25 m if the hard shoulder is >= 1.0m, otherwise 0.12m. • Estonia: On I and II class roads continuous edge lines are required and on III class roads if necessary; on III, IV and V class roads broken edge lines are used if required by the amount of traffic. • Finland: width of marking on semi-motorway is 0.20m. • Hungary: o No edge line in built-up areas. o Mostly the wider line (0.20m) is used (rather than 0.15m). • Ireland: o Single lane direction has a broken edge line. Two lane direction has a continuous edge line. o Continuous lines are ribbed on the offside edge on dual carriageways and motorways. • Poland: Type of lines does not depend on type of road. Such classification does not exist in Poland. • Spain: o Exceptional uses of continuous lines in highways and motorways: near and crossing bridges and tunnels, before and after entry and exit ramps (100m before and after), in road sections where the importance or potential danger in the hard shoulder needs to be remarked. o Type of Line: 'Depending on the width of the hard shoulder: 1) Hard shoulder of at least 1.5m, continuous line, 2m) Hard shoulder under 1.5 m, broken line. o 'In dual carriageways, the type of line depends on the speed limit: 1) Over 100 km/h and including physical separation on the 2 traffic directions (rails or other barriers), width = 0.2m, 2) Under 100 km/h and with no physical separation between the two traffic directions, two parallel continuous lines of width = 0.1m (separation = 0.1m). • UK: Usually use continuous lines, but broken lines are used at road junctions, at exits from private drives onto a public road, at field entrances, at a lay by, at the junction of a cycle track, to show the most suitable path of vehicles through an arch bridge and at the start of a bus lane.
174 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Other types of marking
ARROW MARKINGS
2.4.97. Please enclose figures representing arrow marking that are used in your country (including dimensions) and/or comment on it below:
The figures received and additional comments are shown in Table 45 below:
Table 45 – Examples of Arrow markings
Country Arrow markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
175 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Arrow markings
France
Germany
Greece Hungary
176 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Arrow markings
Ireland Italy Latvia
Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
177 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Arrow markings
Portugal
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
178 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Arrow markings
Sweden
United Kingdom
Comments: • Austria: length of arrows depending on type of roads: Urban areas: 3m length, Non-urban: 5m length, motorways: 10m length. • Finland: Lane arrows, lane end warning arrows. • France: There are two types of arrow markings: arrows to indicate that the driver has to turn off to another lane and directional arrows. The first type is used to warn the approach of a continuous line in the case of two-lane roads and when the number of lanes or the width of lane is reduced for carriageways with two or four lanes. In the first case the arrows are located on the approach line. In the second case the arrows are located according to the axis of the lane which is deleted. The second type is generally used at the approach of an intersection. These arrows allow to indicate which directions belong to the lane. • Germany: The first figure shows arrows (5m) for indicating the direction. On motorway, the length is 7.5m. The second attachment shows arrows at the end of a lane. The arrows indicate to change the lane. The third attachment shows arrows used in a warning line. The length of the arrow is the same as the stroke, that means an arrow covers a stroke. • Hungary: The arrows pointing to the right are mirrored. The dimension L = 5.0m on motorways and on other roads and L = 3.0m on roads in built-up-areas.
179 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
• Latvia: Figure 937 indicates driving directions at junctions; figure 938 gives warnings about lanes ending ; Figure 939 is used for pre-signing systems. • Portugal: Length of the arrow and spacing between them are defined in function of the speed (V15): Vel V15 - length - spacing 1st to 2nd arrow - spacing 2nd to 3rd - spacing 3rd to 4th. >90 - 7.5m - 28m, 56m, 84m. 60-90 - 6.0m - 14m, 28m, 42m. 40-60 - 5.0m - 14m, 14m, 28m. • UK: have arrows for: o Cycle facilities (1059) o Destinations or manoeuvres (1035, 1038) o Bifurcation arrows (1039) o Guidance arrows at or in junctions (1036.1, 1036.2, 1037.1, 1038.1) o Mini roundabouts (1003.4) o Low bridges, start of bus lane, approach to continuous line in double white line system (1014) o End of a bus lane (1050)
WORD AND NUMBER MARKINGS
2.4.98. Do you use word and/or number marking?
13 of 15 countries responding use word and/or number markings. Those that said they did not were Belgium and Latvia.
2.4.99. Please give the list of road markings that are used and their meanings
The road markings sent are shown in Table 46 below. Thereafter, any additional comments are given.
Table 46 - WORD and NUMBER markings
Country Word and number markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia
180 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Word and number markings
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
181 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Word and number markings
Hungary
Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal
182 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Word and number markings
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
Roads with speed limit Roads with speed limit under 60 km/h over 60 km/h
Roads with speed limit over 60 km/h Roads with speed limit under 60 km/h
Roads with speed limit over 60 km/h Roads with speed limit under 60 km/h
Sweden
United Kingdom
Additional comments on the markings were:
• Austria: road-numbers "A2" means Motorway No. on Motorway Intersections, Wordings: STOP – BUS. • Estonia: STOPP (in front of intersection with STOP sign), A (public transport lanes). • Finland: Numbers only speed limit or E-roads (e.g. E75). • France: Different word markings can be used in France, but most of them are limited to urban implantation (BUS, ..). On the TERN, the only word markings that could be expected concern the indication regarding the speed limit or STOP.
183 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
These markings are only used as a complement of road signs. Word markings are vertically dilated in order to take into account the observation angle. When the speed limit is below 50 km/h, the length of letters and numbers shall be at least 1.5m. When the speed limit is higher than 50km/h, the length shall be more than 4m. • Hungary: Only inscription of STOP, BUSZ, TAXI, road number and location name is allowed. • Ireland: 'STOP, NO ENTRY, SLOW, VERY SLOW. LÁNA BUS (the Irish language version for bus lane is used for on-road marking). • Portugal: M1 - continuous line; M2 - broken line; M3 - mixed line; M4 - warning line; M5 - reverse lanes line (at the moment this type of roads does not exist); M6 - exit line; M6a - entry line; M7 - continuous bus line; M7a - broken bus line. • Sweden: BUS, TAXI, STOP. • UK (Not shown). Permissible wordings (diagram numbers shown in brackets): o STOP (1022) o SLOW (1024) o HIGH VEHS (1024.1) o KEEP CLEAR (1026) o TURN LEFT (1036.1) o AHEAD ONLY (1036.2) o TURN RIGHT (1037.1) o NO ENTRY (1046) o BUS LANE (1048) o BUS AND CYCLE LANE (1048.1) (for contra-flow bus lanes only, where cycles are also admitted) o TRAM AND BUS ONLY (1048.2) o BUS ONLY (1048.3) o END (1058) o LOOK LEFT / LOOK RIGHT (1029) o 30 (Maximum speed limit) (1065) May be varied to other speeds
OTHER TYPES OF MARKINGS 2.4.100. Do you use additional types of markings?
10 of 14 countries responding use additional types of markings. Those that do not are: Slovakia, Latvia, the Netherlands and Belgium.
2.4.101. Please give the list of additional types of markings that are used and their meanings
Markings sent, and comments given, are shown in Table 47 below.
184 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Table 47 - Other types of markings Country Other markings
Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland
France Germany
Greece Hungary
Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania
185 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Other markings
Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland
Portugal
Obstacles in the road Safety distance
Chromatic bands Easily congested crossing
Slovakia Slovenia Spain
186 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Country Other markings
Sweden
United Kingdom
Additional comments on the markings were:
• Estonia: Disabled drivers symbol, bicycle road symbol, pedestrian road symbol, danger warning sign symbols. • Finland: invalid parking, pedestrian or bike road, bump. • France: Markings for "distress" lanes and emergency phone station. • Germany: numbers, words, signs and pictograms used in road marking can only hint to a vertical sign. They have no legal meaning. • Hungary: Stretched illustration of following traffic signs: Speed limit, GIVE WAY, Children, Pedestrian crossing, Cyclists, Carriageway narrows, Symbol of light signals, Level crossing without barrier, Level crossing with barrier, Intersection where priority is prescribed by general rule. Symbols of certain traffic participants: (car, truck, motorcycle, bus), cycle, disabled person (wheelchair symbol). Markings for prohibition of standing/parking (yellow continuous/broken line on the side of sidewalk; yellow continuous zigzag line at stops); white X symbol on the prohibited surface). Marking for prohibition of vehicle's traffic on an area (white framed and hatched surface). Advance warning for dangerous place (yellow transverse lines one after the other). Marking for especially dangerous place (yellow framed and hatched surface). • Ireland: Box Junction, School Entrance, Cycle markings, Pedestrian crossings, Hatching, Chevrons. • UK (Not shown here). Permitted markings (with diagram numbers in brackets): o Approach to a road junction where it is necessary to GIVE WAY (1023) o Parts of carriageway which traffic should not enter unless it is safe to do so (1040, 1040.4) o Lengths of road with restricted overtaking (1040.2) o Reduction in number of lanes (1040.3) o Parts of carriageway where traffic can travel in the same direction on both sides of the marking (1041, 1041.1) o Chevron markings showing areas which traffic must not enter including verge or hard shoulder (1042, 1042.1) where traffic can travel in the same direction on both sides of the marking o Box junctions (1043, 1044, 1045) o Single and double yellow lines used for time restricted waiting (1017, 1018.1) o Bus stops (1025.1, 1025.3, 1025.4) o Cycle symbol indicating lane, track or route (1057) o No parking outside school entrances(1027.1)
187 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
o Taxi ranks (1028.2) o Parking bays reserved for disabled and for doctors (1028.3, 1028.4)
Road Studs
2.4.102. Are road studs used in your country?
13 of 17 countries said that road studs were used. Those that do not use them are: Sweden, Austria, Belgium and Latvia.
2.4.103. Are road studs widespread on the TERN network in your country?
For those countries who used them, 8 (of 13) said they were widespread. They were not widespread in Finland, The Netherlands, France, Germany and Hungary.
2.4.104. Do you have any regulations regarding the use of road studs?
For those countries that use them 10 (of 13) have regulations. Those that do not are Hungary, The Netherlands and Ireland.
2.4.105. Please specify in which situations you are using road studs?
For those countries that use them, the main situations are:
• Cyprus: For safety especially during the night. • Estonia: On main roads. • Finland: Used only experimentally, in tunnels new regulations. • France: Road studs are not compulsory and are only used to reinforce the visibility in certain circumstances which are not well defined. • Germany: only in working zones (yellow). • Hungary: Mostly where night visibility of road markings is poor. • Ireland: All longitudinal lines outside public lighting areas on National roads. • Netherlands: Road studs are defined in terms of product quality (through norm NEN-EN 1463), but not in terms of where they should be used. They are used on roads that are not lit, especially near nature reserves. Also on dangerous curves on the nearside. Quick degradation makes them expensive. Road studs are unlikely to become generally used. • Slovakia: road safety criteria - black spots, etc. • Spain: Cat´s eyes are used in Spain in the right limit of the road (on the separation line with the hard shoulder). They are mainly used in road with habitual visibility problems (fog or rain) and in dangerous bends. • UK: widespread use.
2.4.106. The diagram below shows how road studs are used at UK junctions (converted to right hand drive). Please mark in the table how studs would be arranged in your State
188 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
For those countries that use them, the following was found:
• Nearside colour: Generally white (but yellow in Ireland and Red in the UK and Poland). • Between lane colour: White in all countries. • Offside colour: Generally white (but amber in Ireland, yellow in Portugal and amber in the UK, and red in Poland). • At junction colour: green in the UK, France and Ireland; and white in Finland, The Netherlands, and Portugal. • Spacing of marking was variable between all countries and in all the above situations.
Overall, the use of road studs is very variable in the EU countries.
Performances of road markings: Requirements for road marking materials
2.4.107. Do you have specified performance requirements for road marking materials used on your road network?
All countries that responded (17 of 17) said that they had performance requirements for road marking materials used on their road network.
2.4.108. How are these performance requirements given:
• Your national regulation- 10 countries used this. • Local/regional regulation- only 3 countries used this. • Technical guides- 10 countries used this. • Contracts- 5 countries used this. • Others- only 2 countries used other methods (e.g. product certification).
2.4.109. Do the performance requirements depend on:
189 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022 a) the type of road markings (edge lines, centrelines…), b) the type of road (single carriageways, motorways..), c) the speed limit on the road, d) the lighting of the road, e) others?
Factors mentioned were:
• Austria: performance requirements depending on: type of road. type of road marking (edge line or area-marking) Daily Traffic Density, Others like special requirement for winter maintenance works. • Cyprus: temperature. • Estonia: the amount of traffic. • France: All road markings have to be retro-reflective expected in urban areas where public lighting does exist. The minimum performance requirements given by the regulation (ASQUER regulation) are the same for all type of road marking and are not dependant on the speed limit. Some performance requirements depend on the characteristics of the road or road markings like Qd which depends on the type of pavement (Asphalt or cement concrete) and SRT for which the threshold value is higher for pedestrian crossing. • Ireland: Different performance for yellow and white. Performance chosen by client. • Portugal: Expected average daily traffic. • Spain: No, all road markings have the same quality and technical requirements in any types of roads. • UK: No, for road markings this is at the discretion of the traffic authority, but they must meet one of the classes in the relevant European Standard. For road studs, they must meet certain classes in EN1463-1 and -2.
2.4.110. Do road markings need to be certificated or approved to be used on your network?
11 of 15 responding countries said that they did need to be certified. Those that did not included: Portugal, Latvia, Ireland and Finland.
2.4.111. Please describe which type of approval or certification is required?
Responses were slightly varied, they were: • Austria: certification according to EN's and ÖNORM. • Belgium: work reception. • Cyprus: PWD Specifications. • France: French National Certification (NF-marking) according by ASQUER which is mandated by AFNOR. • Germany: BASt-Certification on the basis of EN 13 197, EN 1436 and national regulations. • Hungary: As is prescribed in European Standards.
190 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
• Netherlands: For national highways third party certification by NOBO KIWA (NEN- EN1824 + NEN-EN1871 and BRL 9141). In the near future it is up to contractors to decide to work with certification. • Slovakia: a certificate issued by Ministry of Transport. • Spain: Certification of materials and retro-reflectivity according to EU rules. • Sweden: only functional requirements EN 1436. • UK: Confirmation of compliance with the relevant European Standard.
Materials
2.4.112. Are road markings always made of retro-reflective materials?
• Six of 17 countries said that road markings were made of retro-reflective materials • 11 of 17 countries said that road markings were not always made of retro- reflective materials.
2.4.113. Which criteria(s) defines if road marking have to be retro-reflective or not?
Criteria given were:
• Austria: location and type of marking (parking lines are not reflective). • Estonia: On state roads - they must always be retro-reflective. • Finland: Not necessarily retro-reflection where there is permanent lighting, this is very seldom used. • France: All road markings have to be retro-reflective expected in urban areas. where public lighting does exist. But even in this case it is strongly recommended to use retro-reflective material. • Hungary: Retro-reflective materials are generally used with a great amount of exceptions (10 items specified). • Netherlands: In indoor parking places or other places where retroreflectivity is not needed. • Poland: Roads with lamps need not be retroreflective • Portugal: Outside built-up areas retro-reflective road markings are mandatory • Slovakia: Type of road. • Sweden: If there are road lighting or in parking areas then the markings do not haft to be retro-reflective.. • UK: Markings on cycle tracks don't have to be reflectorised, nor do markings that don't have a guidance function, such as yellow box markings.
2.4.114. Are you using road markings designed to improve night visibility in wet conditions?
12 of 16 of countries who responded said that they were. Those countries that did not were: Belgium, Estonia, Ireland and Portugal.
2.4.115. Which criteria(s) defines if road marking have to be designed to improve night visibility in wet conditions?
191 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
A variety of criteria were given:
• Austria: No criteria - mainly used on motorways. • Cyprus: safety problems. • Finland: Main road when over 3000veh/day. • France: There are no special requirements in the French regulation regarding the use of such road marking. Their use depends on the choice of each entity in charge of the network. • Germany: EN 1436. • Hungary: Improving road safety. • Ireland: Studs are used for wet night time guidance. • Netherlands: We start testing products in practice. • Poland: Only EN1436 • Slovakia: road safety criteria. • Spain: in those geographical areas with more than 100 rainy days per year, according to the statistics of the National Institute for Meteorology • Sweden: Rl wet 35 mcd/m2lux. • UK: Raised rib markings may be used to improve visibility on wet roads at night, but these are not compulsory.
2.4.116. Are you using raised profile road markings?
All countries (17 of 17) said that they were using raised profile road markings.
2.4.117. Are raised profile road markings used ?
• For their capability to improve night time visibility under rain or wetness conditions: mentioned by 12 countries. • For their capability to give sound feedback to the drivers: mentioned by 16 countries (Austria did not say they were used for this purpose).
2.4.118. Are you using ‘recessed’ profile road markings?
Only four of 16 countries were using ‘recessed’ profile road markings, these were: Finland, Portugal, Germany and Latvia.
2.4.119. Please give comments regarding the use of profiled road markings?
Other comments were:
• Cyprus: Edge line of motorways: Improve road safety. • Finland: The amount of profiled road markings has increased markedly during last years. • France: Raised profiled road markings are mostly used to improve night time visibility under rain or wetness conditions. In few situations, they are also use to
192 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
provide sound feedback to the drivers. The requirements regarding their performance in wet or rain conditions are testes and required to obtain the certification. • Germany: not used in built-up areas. • Hungary: They are very useful by the drivers' opinion, too. • Latvia: We use road marking from thermoplastic on main roads where the density of vehicles is over 10,000. • The Netherlands: On motorways at nearside marking. • Spain: The original reason for using raised profile markings was their capability to improve visibility in rain conditions. However, the sound feedback for drivers (initially considered as a secondary positive characteristic) has gained ground and is currently considered as the primary reason to use this type of markings. • UK: Can be less visible than conventional markings when viewed against the sun, because of the shadow effect from the raised ribs. Maintenance can be problematic when the ribs wear down with trafficking.
Standardisation, test methods and performances threshold
The European standard EN1436 “Road marking materials – Road marking performance for road users” specifies the performance for road users of white and yellow road markings, as expressed by their reflection in daylight or under road lighting (QD or luminance factor β), retro-reflection in car headlamp illumination (RL), colour (chromaticity coordinates x,y) and skid resistance (PTV-SRT value).
2.4.120. Is this standard implemented in your country?
In 14 of the 16 countries responding it was implemented. Those countries where it is not implemented are: Portugal and Estonia.
2.4.121. Requirements for reflection in daylight or under road lighting. Are you using?
• None- in one country (Estonia) • QD (according to EN1436)- in 10 of 17 countries. • β (according to EN1436)- in 9 of 17 countries. • Other performances- in 2 of 17 countries. These were: o Portugal (Luminance factor of thermoplastic white markings is required to be higher than 0.8 in contracts. Coefficient of retro-reflected luminance of thermoplastic white markings is required to be higher than 150 mcd.m2.Ix- 1- road constructers are contractually obliged to). o Finland: Friction for Zebra lines over 0.45 (m).
2.4.122. Requirements regarding daylight colour. Are you using?
• None- in two countries (Portugal and Estonia). • (x,y) (according to EN1436)- in 13 countries. • Other performances- in one country (Cyprus, who use EN 1871:2000).
193 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.123. Requirements for retro-reflection under vehicle headlamp illumination. Are you using?
• RL for dry road markings (according to EN1436)- in 16 of the 17 countries (not in Portugal). • RL for road markings during wetness (according to EN1436) – in 12 of the 17 countries. • RL for road marking during rain (according to EN1436) – 6 of the 17 of countries (Spain, Slovakia, Hungary France, Latvia and Austria). • Other performances- in two countries (Portugal- where luminance factor of thermoplastic white markings (under a CIE source type D65) is required to be higher than 0.8 -road constructers are contractually obliged to and the Netherlands - 15m geometry with Optronic, we are moving to new geometry (EN 1436). During rain only for type 2 markings
2.4.124. Requirements slip/skid resistance. Are you using?
• None- no countries reported using no slip/skid resistance requirements. • PTV-SRT (according to EN1436)- 15 of the 17 countries reported this, those that did not were: Portugal and Estonia • Other performances- 2 of the 17 countries mentioned other requirements, these were: o Portugal- Slip resistance - Thermoplastic materials with dry thickness of 1.5mm must present a resistance to friction higher than 55 BPN, measured with the British pendulum. In dangerous areas the value should be higher than 60 BPN (road constructers are contractually obliged to). o Estonia- Coefficient of friction must be at leas 0.4 in wet conditions.
2.4.125. Do you have others Standards regarding road markings?
The following other standards were mentioned:
• Austria: ON 22440 – Durability. • Cyprus: EN1871:2000, EN1424:1997. • France: We are using all EN European standards and we do not have specific requirements regarding performance requirements than those included in these standards. • Germany: yes, national regulation based on EN 1436. • Hungary: MSZ EN 1423; 1424; 1463-1; 1463-2; 1790; 1824; 1871; 12802; 13212; 13459-1...3; 13897. • Ireland: Durability and performance requirements set by contract. • Portugal: o Resistance to aging - thermoplastic materials with 1.5mm thickness under a light cycle of 102 minutes and a light / rain cycle of 18 minutes (during
194 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
168 continuous hours) should not show visual detectable defects (ISO 11341 - road constructers are contractually obliged to). o Resistance to water - thermoplastic materials with 1.5mm thickness dried during 72 hours and emerged in water at 20º to 30º during 24 hours should not show blistering or fissures (road constructers are contractually obliged to). • Slovakia: Slovak Technical Norms. • UK: There is a British Standard (BS 7962:2000 "Black materials for masking existing road markings"), as there is no European Standard for such materials.
2.4.126. Please fill in the table below regarding the threshold values required in your country? (only if you are using performances defined in EN1436)
As seen below, a fair degree of variation in the required threshold values exists:
• White asphalt QD varied from 100 (Sweden)-160 (Spain). • White asphalt B varied from 0.3 (Hungary)- >=0.80 (Cyprus). • White cement/concrete QD varied from 100 (Austria)- 200 (Spain). • White cement/concrete B was given at 0.4 for Hungary, Poland and Spain (no other countries gave this measurement). • Yellow QD varied from 80 (Belgium) to 130 (Cyprus). • Yellow B varied from 0.2 to >=0.50 (Cyprus). • White asphalt RL (dry) varied from 100 (Sweden) to 300 (Spain). • White asphalt LRL varied from 25 (Belgium) to >=50 (Finland). • White asphalt RL (during rain) varied from 25 (Hungary) to 35 (France). • White cement/concrete RL (dry) varied from 100 (Austria) to 300 (Spain). • White cement/concrete LRL varied from 25 (Hungary) to 35 (Sweden). • White cement/concrete RL (during rain) varied from 25 (Belgium) to 35 (France). • Yellow RL (dry) varied from 80 (Hungary, Poland) to 300 (Spain). • Yellow LRL varied from 25 (Hungary) to >=50 (Finland). • Yellow RL (during rain) was only given for Hungary (25). • SRT threshold value only varied slightly from 45 (Germany, Poland) to 55 (Netherlands).
2.4.127. Additional information: Please give below all information that you consider to relevant regarding marking materials?
The following comments were given:
• Ireland: the values in question 2.4.126 above are the normal values used on trunk roads. Higher values may sometimes be specified by contract. Lower values may also be specified. There is no legal requirement to provide a certain value. Most lines are provided with a two year durability and performance guarantee. • Spain: Spanish technical specifications are fully implemented accordingly to EN 1436. In fact, very few technical tables or standards can be found in the Spanish legislation, as the norm refers constantly to the EN 1436 specifications.
195 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4. Institutional scenarios For each question, the responses given will be summarised in a table. Before that, the key points will be discussed.
Supra-National Representation 2.4.1. Which entities are responsible for representing this country in international conventions and agreements regarding road signs and markings?
As can be seen in Table 48 below, the federal government in each country is responsible. The exact ministry/department varies- in some cases it is a dedicated Department of Transport, in others it is part of a wider department (such as the Ministry of Communications and Works in Cyprus).
Table 48 – Entities which are responsible for representing their own country in international conventions and agreements regarding road signs and markings
EU State Response The federal government (federal ministry of transport, innovation and technology) is responsible. The representatives are chosen according to the special theme from government administration, industry and / Austria or research institutions (e.g. universities). Public Federal Department for Mobility and Transports Belgium (Service Public Fédéral de la Mobilité et Transports). Cyprus Ministry of Communications and Works. Czech Republic Denmark Ministry of Transportation and Energy. Estonia Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland, Finland Transport Policy Department. D.S.C.R (Road Safety and Traffic Direction), which is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport. There is no specific department for TERN but there is an entity in charge of European questions which deals also with TERN matters. This entity is a department of the Roads Direction. But all matters relating to road France signing system on the TERN are dealt by D.S.C.R. The federal government (federal ministry of transport, building and housing) is responsible. The representatives are chosen according to the special theme from government administration, industry and / Germany or research institutions (e.g. universities). Ministry of Transportation for the Traffic Code (Road Signs). Ministry of Public Works for technical Greece specifications. Ministry of Economy and Transport, Public Roads Hungary Transport Dept. Ireland Department of Transport. Italy
196 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Latvia Latvian State Roads Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Ministry of Traffic (or its departments Rijkswaterstaat and AVV), and CROW can both be involved in meetings, depending on the topic being Netherlands discussed. Usually representatives are chosen ad-hoc Poland National Road Administration (Estradas de Portugal, E.P.E. http://www2.iestradas.pt/) has been qualified as a Sectorial Standardization Organisation since July 2001 by the Portuguese Quality Institute (member of the European Committee for Standardization). In this matter the National Road Administration has been active in the CEN/TC 278 - Road Transport and Traffic Telematics and also coordinates a national homologous technical commission on this subject; General Directorate of Land Transport - This public body is responsible for issues related with the TERN (Direcção Geral de Transporte Terrestre Portugal http://www.dgtt.pt/). Slovakia Slovenia The Ministry of Transports, Infrastructures and Public Works (MFOM, Ministerio de Fomento).
Within the MFOM, the responsible department concerning road signs and markings is the General Directorate for Roads (DGC, Dirección General de Carreteras); the International Cabinet of the General Secretariat is responsible for the representation of the DGC and MFOM. For specific technical matters, the International Cabinet requests opinion and advice to the other General Sub-Directorates. For some issues the International Cabinet can also request the presence of personnel from the General Sub-Directorates in Spain international meetings. Sweden Ministry of Industry Employment and Communication. United Kingdom Department for Transport & Highways Agency.
197 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.2. Are there any expected changes in the near future for any issue related to this process?
No changes are expected. See Table 49 for the countries which have responded to this question:
Table 49 – Responses given to question 2.4.2
EU State Response Austria No Belgium - Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark No Estonia - Finland No France No Germany No Greece No Hungary No Ireland No Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands No Poland Portugal No Slovakia Slovenia Spain No Sweden No United Kingdom No
198 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Production of National Regulations 2.4.3. Which are the main national laws, technical and normative documents (those of compulsory observance) in force regarding road signs and markings (please highlight any TERN specific document)?
As can be seen in Table 50 below, a range of laws, regulations and other compulsory documents are mentioned. All countries that responded seemingly have a mature system of regulations; however it is interesting that in some countries (e.g. Hungary, Portugal, Latvia and Ireland) many of these regulations are quite new.
Table 50 – Main national laws, technical and normative documents in force regarding road signs and markings
EU State Response Nine regulations mentioned (in addition to additional national norms based on EN). These date from 1960 up to regulations still in production. These cover: the highway code (StVO1960), rules for the design and construction of direction signs (visibility, fonts and colours), design and position of direction signs, sign retro reflective materials, and dimensions, geometric arrangements and applications of road Austria markings. Three documents were mentioned, these are: • Law relating to the policy of road traffic • General rules on the policy of road traffic and the use of public highway (highway code) • Minimal dimensions and special conditions for placement of road traffic system and its annexes. The latter two documents are in accordance with the international and European agreement of Vienna Belgium (1968) and Geneva (1971). One overall document mentioned: The Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic Regulations of 1972. This covers: • Registration and licensing of motor vehicles. • Driving licences. • Inspection of motor vehicles. • Traffic Regulations. Cyprus • Road Signs. Czech Republic Several documents at www.vejregler.dk . Click on “ Denmark Indhold” and then on “ Færdselsregulering og udstyr”” Two documents were mentioned. • Estonian Standard EVS 613:2001, Traffic signs. Application (2001) (compulsory in Estonia). • Estonian Standard EV ST 614-92, Traffic markings. Estonia Application. (1993) (compulsory in Estonia). Finland Five documents mentioned, dated from 1981 to 2004.
199 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response These are: • Highway code • Traffic ordinance • The decision of Ministry of Transport for traffic signing and signalling • Structure and erection of road signs, Requirements regarding structures and quality. • The guide for road signing by the Finnish National Road Administration (detailed guidelines, but not mandatory) Three types of documents were mentioned: • The Highway code (last edition June 2001) • Inter-ministerial instructions/Inter-departmental orders (last version 2002). These documents define the implementation requirements/ rules and requirements for road signs, road markings and other type of visual road equipment. The definition of signs used in France is described in these documents. • French Standards. Numerous French standards deal with road equipment, including some characteristics not included in European Standards. For example, the whole technical characteristics of France signs are defined in these standards. 16 laws, catalogues, regulations and documents mentioned. The most important are: • Straßenverkehrsordnung (StVO) (2002). Road traffic regulation or Highway code. Containing all traffic regulations, traffic signs and their meanings. • Verwaltungsvorschrift zur Straßenverkehrsordnung (VWV-StVO) (2001). Includes legal rules and instructions for the use of traffic signs. They are directed towards responsible administrations. • Katalog der Verkehrszeichen (VzKat, 1992) (1997). The catalogue contains every official road traffic sign with the exact design and possible sizes. Other documents are for the design and position of direction signs, fonts/colours to be used on signs, Germany visibility requirements, and road markings. 6 documents were mentioned (dated from 1974-2004): • Model Technical Specs 301-306 (1974, 76 and later minor updates) - Initial specifications on shapes, dimensions, messages, materials, letters etc for Signs and Markings. • Model Technical Specs 310-311 (1986) - Sign membranes and colours. • Technical Spec on Traffic Signs retro-reflectivity Greece (1997) - New categories and requirements for signs
200 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response retro-reflectivity for all types of roads. • Guidelines for Vertical Signage (1991) - For all roads except motorways. • Vertical Signage for Motorways (1992, 2004)- Traffic signs for motorways and for work zones. • Traffic Code (version 1999) - Includes the typology of road signs. 18 Ministerial Orders or Road Technical Specifications were listed (from 1984-2004). These include: • Ministerial order on the traffic management and the application of traffic signs, signals and road markings • Ministerial order on the dimensions and technical requirements of traffic signs • Ministerial order on the planning and implementing of road signs • Road Technical Specification: Planning, applying and placing of road signs • Road Technical Specification: Public Road Signs. Warning Signs and Their Symbols The vast majority of these Orders and Specifications Hungary are very recent; they were largely created after 2001. The Traffic Signs Manual (TSM) and seven regulations were mentioned. The TSM (1996) is a comprehensive guide to the types of signs and markings used in Ireland. The TSM consists of directions given by the Minister pursuant to section 95(16) of the Road Traffic Act 1961 in relation to the provision and use of non-regulatory signs. Regulatory traffic signs are prescribed in statutory regulations made by the Minister for Transport – design specifications and standards for regulatory signs are also included in the current TSM. The regulations mentioned were: • Road Traffic Act 1961 (No. 24 of 1961, and subsequent amendments) - empowers the Minister for Transport to make regulations with respect to traffic signs and in the case of non-regulatory signs to make directions regarding the provision and use of such signs. • Road Traffic Act 1994- Empowers the Minister for Transport to make regulations for the general regulation and control of traffic • Five road traffic regulations to prescribe regulatory signs which may be provided on roads by road authorities to indicate the existence of a road regulation, to implement such a regulation or to Ireland indicate the existence of a provision in an
201 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response enactment relating to road traffic. Italy 3 documents mentioned (all Latvian State Standards), from 2002-2005. These are: Road signs (LVS 77) 2002 Traffic marking (LVS 85) 2005 Road traffic control equipment signal heads Latvia (LVS 370) 2004 Lithuania Luxembourg Malta 5 documents mentioned, from 1990-2005. These are: • The “Regulation Traffic Rules and Signs 1990 • The road traffic law 1994 • The Decision on Administrative Acts on Road Traffic. • In 2004, new guidelines on road markings and signing were introduced • The recently adopted guidelines (2005) for direction signs contain the state of the art on direction signs Netherlands and replace the earlier guidelines. Poland 4 documents mentioned, these are: • National road code, 1998 • Road marking norm, 1995 • Vertical Orientation Signs Norm, 1995 Portugal • Vertical Signs Norm, 1998 Slovakia Slovenia 5 documents mentioned, from 1987-2004. These are: • Road Law, 1988. General framework law for the Spanish road sector. • General Rule for Roads, 1994 • Main normative document regarding technical requirements for road signs. Provides standards on types, size, disposition and requirements for road signs (1999) • Main normative document regarding technical requirements for road markings. Provides types, standards and requirements for road signs (1987). • Technical document (MFOM) regarding specifications on several standards for road works, including references to materials and standards on Spain road signs and markings (2004). 6 documents mentioned. The most important ones are: • Vägar och gators utformning, vägmärken (2004/1994). Design of roads and streets, traffic Sweden signs)
202 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response • Vägar och gators utformning, vägmarkering och vägkantsutmärkning. (2004/1994) Design of roads and streets, road markings.
Other documents are: • Swedish Road Administration regulations - Regulations and recommendations based on Traffic ordinance and Traffic signing ordinance. (E.g the size and siting of signs), • Highway code- Regulations for public roads, who is responsible for roads, • Traffic signing ordinance -Regulations for traffic signing and other controls, how they are used and implemented, • Regulations for traffic on road
One main document mentioned: Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions, 2002. UK traffic sign regulations - including design, lighting and sign positioning. Other documents available to the general public are the highway code (2004) and ‘know your traffic signs’ United Kingdom (1995).
203 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.4. Which entities are responsible for transposing international conventions and agreements on road signs and markings into national legislation?
In the countries that responded, see Table 51 below, Federal government (in its various forms) is the main agency responsible for this transposition. Sometimes more than one government department is involved (eg in Greece, where three departments have roles).
Table 51 - Entities which are responsible for transposing international conventions and agreements on road signs and markings into national legislation
EU State Response The federal government is responsible (BMVIT Federal Austria Ministry of Transport, Innovation and Technology). Public Federal Department for Mobility and Transports (Service Public Fédéral de la Mobilité et Transports). Belgium Traffic Regulation Department. Ministry of Communications and Works – Cyprus Governmental. Czech Republic Denmark The Danish Road Directorate. Estonia Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland, Finland Transport Policy Department. D.S.C.R (Road Safety and Traffic Direction) which is under the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport is responsible. But this process relies on consultations with private or public technical organizations, road network administrators, and road equipment manufacturers. The Home Office (Domestic Ministry) is France also highly involved in this process. The federal government is responsible (federal ministry Germany of transport, building and housing). Governmental: Ministry of Public Works, Ministry of Transportation and the Hellenic Organization for Greece Standardization (ELOT). Ministry of Economy and Transport, Public Roads Hungary Transport Dept. (government). Ireland The Department of Transport (Governmental). Italy Latvia The Ministry of Transport and Communications. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Ministry of Transport (public); Parliament (public) and Netherlands CROW (expert group). Poland
204 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response General Directorate of Transport (Direcção Geral de Portugal Viação). Slovakia Slovenia The Technical Directorate, with the support of other General Sub-Directorates for some specific technical matters. The legislation is later issued by the Ministry (MFOM) as Ministerial Order and, in case the international agreement affects or requires the modification of a Spanish Law, the new Law is issued by the Ministry (MFOM) and approved by the Government.
The transposition of UNE-EN documents is more direct: the new UNE-EN document is translated by AENOR, the Spanish body in charge of certification and international standards. The document is directly adopted by the General Directorate for Roads (DGC, Dirección General de Carreteras) and the Ministerial orders or technical documents are modified to introduce the references to the new UNE-EN. The body directly in charge of this process is also the Technical Spain Directorate of the General Directorate for Roads. Sweden Ministry of Industry Employment and Communication. Department for Transport - Traffic Management United Kingdom Division.
205 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.5. Which are the entities responsible for producing technical specifications for road signs and markings, such as technical and normative documents?
As in the previous question, the federal government takes the lead in this process; however, countries differ in the exact process, see Table 52 for the responses given. For example, the systems in Austria and the Netherlands involve several official bodies, whereas in Finland and Sweden this is done by a single organisation in each country.
Table 52 - Entities that are responsible for producing technical specifications for road signs and markings, such as technical and normative documents
EU State Response AUSTRIA Road Traffic Regulations (StVO , StZVO and BMVO): These traffic laws are issued by the federal government.
Other regulation and technical documents (of compulsory observance): They are issued by the federal government (BMVIT) or the FSV (Austrian Research Association on Roads and Transport).
The compulsory observance for motorways and main roads begins an official declaration by BMVIT.
It is recommended that the state government administrations (responsible for the traffic legislation) will issue the regulations compulsory for the roads in their responsibility (state roads, rural roads, city roads). The drafting is made by an expert group of the FSV. Specification of the bodies in charge: BMVIT: Federal ministry of transport, innovation and technology FSV: Austrian Research Association on Roads and Transport (non-profit organisation since1950 with members from engineering and scientific background. There are organisations at different levels: commissions, committees, working groups for setting Austria up guidelines and technical standards). Public Federal Department for Mobility and Transports Belgium (Service Public Fédéral de la Mobilité et Transports). Governmental: Ministry of Communications and Works (Public Works Dept., Dept. of Rd Transport) and the Cyprus Police Department. Czech Republic Denmark The Danish Road Directorate. Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications. Drafting is made by working group. Issuing by Estonian Estonia Standards Board. Finland Finnish National Road Administration, Technical
206 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Services Department. The establishment of technical documents involves different partners: - Central technical services (SETRA, CERTU, CETU) : public organizations - Research and Technical laboratories (LCPC for example) : public organizations - Associations; - Manufacturers - Road network administrators and DSCR. The Central technical services are responsible for producing technical documents with the agreement of D.S.C.R.
The establishment of normative documents involves the same partners than those mentioned above but also certification body as ASQUER which is in charge of the certification of road equipment. French standards are published by AFNOR with the consultation and agreement of the French Ministry of Transport and Domestic Ministry (Home Office). France German Road Traffic Regulations (StVO and VwV- StVO): These traffic laws are issued by the federal government. The drafting is made by federal government administration together with the administrations of the federal states and BASt.
Other regulation and technical documents (of compulsory observance): They are issued by the federal government and the FGSV. The compulsory observance for motorways and federal roads begins with the issue in a special publication of BMVBW (“Verkehrsblatt”). It is recommended that the state government administrations (responsible for the traffic legislation) will issue the regulations compulsory for the roads in their responsibility (state roads, rural roads, city roads). The drafting is made by an expert group of the FGSV or by BASt. Specification of the bodies in charge: • BMVBW: Federal ministry of transport, building and housing • FGSV: Road and Transportation Research Association (non-profit organisation since 1924 with members from engineering and scientific Germany background. There are organisations at different
207 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response levels: commissions, committees, task groups for setting up guidelines and technical standards.) • BASt: Federal Highway Research Institute in the responsibilities of BMVBW. • State government (administration responsible for traffic legislation and / or road administration). Governmental - various technical committees Greece appointed by the Ministry of Public Works. Ministry of Economy and Transport, Public Roads Hungary Transport Dept. (government). The Department of Transport (Governmental) The National Roads Authority (Independent Statutory Body) – specifications subject to approval of Minister of Transport National Standards Authority of Ireland (Independent Ireland Statutory Body) – publishes European Norms. Italy Latvia Latvian State Roads Lithuania Luxembourg Malta CROW (expert group); Rijkswaterstaat (Public Works Department of the Ministry of Transport); NEN (Dutch Normalisation Institute). Netherlands Previously also ANWB, the motorist association. Poland Drafting and issuing: National Road Administration (Estradas de Portugal) - public entity under tutelage of the Ministry of Public Works, Transports and Communications (http://www.moptc.pt). Drafting; issuing and approval: General Directorate of Transport (Direcção Geral de Viação) - public entity under tutelage of the Ministry of Internal Affairs - Portugal http://www.mai.gov.pt). Slovakia Slovenia Technical specifications are directly drafted by the Technical Directorate of the General Directorate for Roads, with the support of other General Sub- Directorates for some specific technical matters. The legislation is later issued by the Ministry (MFOM) with Spain the rank of Ministerial Order. Sweden Swedish Road Administration. Comite Europeen de Normalisation; British Standards United Kingdom Institution.
208 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.6. Which government entity is responsible for approving these technical specifications (e.g.: Ministry, general directorate of transport, etc.)?
As can be seen in Table 53 below, several slightly different systems are in place in different countries, for example some (e.g. France) involve consultation with others, whereas other countries (e.g. Belgium, Greece) use a single entity.
Table 53 - Government entity which is responsible for approving technical specifications
EU State Response Austria The federal government (BMVIT). Belgium Federal Minister of Mobility and Transports. Cyprus Ministry of Communications and Works. Czech Republic Denmark The Danish Road Directorate. Estonian Standards Board approves. The decree of Minister of Economics and Communications makes it Estonia compulsory to use in Estonian Roads. Finnish National Road Administration, Technical Finland Services Department As in the previous question, this involves several partners in France (under direction of the Ministry of Transport): Central technical services, public organizations, Research and Technical laboratories, Associations, Manufacturers, Road network administrators and DSCR. The Central technical services are responsible for producing technical documents with the agreement of D.S.C.R. The establishment of normative documents involves the same partners than those mentioned above but also certification body as ASQUER which is in charge of the certification of road equipment. French standards are published by AFNOR with the consultation and agreement of the French Ministry of France Transport and Domestic Ministry (Home Office). The federal government approves the regulations after receiving the statements of the state governments Germany (state administration). Ministry of Public Works. This Ministry also issues new Greece legislation. Ministry of Economy and Transport, Public Roads Hungary Transport Dept. (this is the same entity). The Minister for Transport brings legislative proposals before the Houses of the Oireachtas (Parliament) for enactment of primary legislation. S/he has power to make secondary legislation (statutory regulations) Ireland pursuant to primary legislation and to transpose EU
209 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Directives into Irish law. Italy Latvia The Ministry of Transport and Communications. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands The Ministry of Transport. Poland General Directorate of Transport (Direcção Geral de Viação) - public entity. It is also responsible for issuing Portugal new legislation. Slovakia Slovenia The Ministry of Transports, Infrastructures and Public Works (MFOM, Ministerio de Fomento). The Ministry publishes the new normative document in the Official Spain Journal of the State (BOE, Boletín Oficial del Estado). Sweden Swedish Road Administration. Government entities are obliged to use CEN Standards without amending them. The Department is represented on the BSI committee that takes part in the United Kingdom European Standards drafting process.
210 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.7. Briefly describe the process of national legislation production (or transposition of international rules) regarding road signs and markings, stating in each phase the institution/s involved, responsibilities and timings
Again, as seen in Table 54 below, a variety of systems are employed. The systems in Austria and Estonia involve more expert groups, whereas in the UK this process is undertaken largely by a single entity (Department for Transport). Also, there are differing level of formality in the systems- in Spain and Cyprus the systems are quite formal, whereas in Sweden the first stages of the process can come from several sources.
Table 54 - Processes of producing national legislation regarding road signs and markings
EU State Response Process for the production of national legislations except Road Traffic Regulations:
-The production is initiated by BMVIT or by FSV -Drafting by FSV: -Forming a task related expert-group for the drafting period. -Examination of the draft by a FSV commission -FSV revises the draft considering the results of the examinations -BMVIT approves the final version -BMVIT introduces the new regulations by an official declaration. From this moment they are compulsory for Austria motorways and main roads. Public Federal Department for Mobility and Transports and others groups / associations: Belgium institute for Road Safety, Federal Commission for Road Safety, Belgium The Police, and the 3 regions. 1. Public Works Dept, Dept. of Rd. Transport and Police Dept- Prepare Draft. 2. Ministry of Communications and Works - Sends Draft to the Law Office of the Republic for legal vetting. 3. The Law Office of the Republic after legal vetting - Sends back to the Min. of Communications and Works. 4. Ministry of Communications and Works - Sends to the Council of Ministers. 5. Council of Ministers - Sends reply to the Min. of Communications and Works. 6. Ministry of Communications and Works - Sends to the House of Parliament with the Council of Ministers to Cyprus pass the Bill. Czech Republic Denmark - Estonia Estonian Road Administration creates a working group
211 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response consisting of experts from the Estonian Road Administration, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Ministry of the Interior, local governments, technical university, engineering bureau. Final redaction was compiled by the traffic management department of Estonian Road Administration. The draft of standard was delivered to Estonian Standards Board by Road Administration. The standard was approved and issued as Estonian Standard EVS 613:2001 by the directive of Estonian Standards Board. The standard was made compulsory to use in Estonian roads by the decree of Minister of Economic Affairs and Communications. Ministry of Transport and Communications Finland, Transport Policy Department produces a proposal for the parliament. If a bigger change then a working group with representatives from Finnish National Road Administration, Technical Services Department and Finland Federation of municipalities. D.S.C.R is responsible for producing the legislation. But a consultation process involving different private or public partners and actors precedes this work. This consultation is helpful to establish the content of legal articles which are included in the French regulation. One commission called Commission Permanente des Equipements de la Route (Permanent Commission for Road Equipment) examines and expresses their advisory views on the proposals. The final drawing up of legal documents is done in dialogue between Home Office (Domestic Ministry) and the Ministry of Transport. These two ministries are co- France signatory of the legal documents. Process for the production of national legislations except German Road Traffic Regulations: -The production is initiated by BMVBW or by FGSV -BMVBW gives an order to BASt or FGSV for drafting -It takes normally 2 until 5 years for finishing drafting
Drafting by FGSV: -Forming a task related expert-group for the drafting period. In special cases a research institution gets an order to make a proposal for the drafting. -Examination of the draft by a FGSV commission -Examination of the draft by the state governments -FGSV revises the draft considering the results of the examinations -BMVBW approves the final version Germany -BMVBW introduces the new regulation in his special
212 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response publication (“Verkehrsblatt”). From this moment the regulation is compulsory for motorways and federal roads
Drafting by BASt: -BASt carries out the draft. In some cases part of the contents will be worked out in a special research project. -Examination of the draft by the state governments -BASt revises the draft considering the results of the examinations -BMVBW approves the final version -BMVBW introduces the new regulation in his special publication (“Verkehrsblatt”). From this moment the regulation is compulsory for motorways and federal roads. No official procedure. Usually a technical committee is appointed by the Ministry of Public Works with the task to revise the existing specification or prepare a new one. The committee consists of experts and representatives of public or private organisations that deal with the issue (eg traffic signs and markings). The specification is approved by the ministry which is responsible for issuing a new law or just a guideline Greece and for distributing it to all interested bodies. Hungary - Draft legislative proposals for statutory regulations are prepared in the Department of Transport, approved by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel (under Office of the Attorney General) and signed into law by the Ireland Minister for Transport. Italy The Ministry of Transport and Communications of Republic of Latvia or Latvian State Roads order technical and normative documents, which are approved by the Technical Commission of Latvian Latvia State Roads and adopted as Latvian State Standard. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Transposition of EC Directives is carried out by the Ministry of Transport, the resulting national legislation has to be either adopted by the parliament or decreed by Royal Decision. Main responsibility is the Ministry of Netherlands Transport at all times. Poland Legislation is approved by parliament Portugal (http://www.parlamento.pt/) based on a proposal
213 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response drafted by the General Directorate of Transport or a working group of experts from several public entities. Technical Regulations are approved by the General Directorate of Transport based on a proposal drafted by the National Road Administration or by the General Directorate of Transport itself. Slovakia Slovenia 1) The new normative or technical document is drafted or transposed by the Technical Directorate of the General Directorate for Roads, with the support from the General Sub-Directorates involved in the issue. This process can involve also consultations to technical institutes, foreign and national. The final draft is presented to the Ministry of Transports, Infrastructures and Public Works for approval. Timing = 2-3 months 2) Once approved, it is presented to the public stakeholders of the road sector for consultation: road construction companies, road concessionaires, professional associations, road users associations, insurance companies, etc. During this period there is a continuous interactive process between the Ministry and the private stakeholders, aimed at reaching a consensus concerning the new rule. Timing = 2-3 months 3) After the comments from the stakeholders, the final draft is approved by the General Technical Secretary of the Ministry. Timing = 1 month 4) Eventually, the new normative document is submitted for its approval by the Council of State, the body in charge of watching over the adequacy of all newly issued legislation. Timing = up to 3 months 5) The Council of Ministers approves and sends the new Law or Order for publication in the Official Journal of the State (BOE). The normative document enters in force the day it is published in Spain the Official Journal. Timing = 2 weeks There is no particularly process in this area. The proposal could come from local or regional authorities and of course from us, Swedish Road Administration. Sweden The decision is then taken by government. The Department for Transport drafts new or amended Regulations, consults interested parties and notifies the United Kingdom European Commission.
214 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.8. Are there any expected changes in the near future for any issue related to this process?
With the exception of Portugal, no changes are expected, see Table 55 below:
Table 55 – Responses given to question 2.4.8
EU State Response Austria No Belgium No Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark No Estonia - Finland No France No Germany No Greece No Hungary No Ireland No Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Netherlands No Poland Yes, new legislation regarding road markings implementation and inspection will be issued on the Portugal short / medium term. Slovakia Slovenia Spain No Sweden No United Kingdom No
215 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Production of local regulations (if applied)
2.4.9. Are there specific matters in road signs and markings which can be regulated by any type of local or regional body (such as municipalities or regional authorities)?
The amount of regulation by local/regional bodies varies between states; see Table 56 for the responses given. For example, in France or Finland no local regulation is undertaken, in Germany, Ireland and Estonia it is possible but rare, whereas in the UK more regional regulation is possible. In part, it seems that these differences reflect the independence of different regions- for example the independent parliament in Scotland and the increasing use of the Welsh language in Wales.
Table 56 - Specific matters in road signs and markings which can be regulated by any type of local or regional body
EU State Response The state governments usually approve the regulations for the roads in their responsibility. Modifications are possible but rare. The Austrian Road Traffic Austria Regulations cannot be modified. Belgium No Cyprus Implementation and maintenance. Czech Republic Denmark No No. But local or regional body can obtain permission from the Estonian Road Administration to use a new Estonia sign, experimentally for example. Finland No France No. Not at all. The state governments usually approve the regulations for the roads in their responsibility. Modifications are possible but rare. The German Road Traffic Germany Regulations cannot be modified. Most aspects covered by the National Specifications. For markings, some local or regional bodies specify Greece their own retro-reflectivity requirements. Hungary - Special speed limits and parking restrictions & charges are applied by Local Authorities. However the signs Ireland and markings must comply with National Regulations. Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands No local regulations in the Netherlands.
216 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Poland Portugal No Slovakia Slovenia The Spanish road network is divided into: a) the National Road Network, main national roads under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transports, Infrastructures and Public Works; and b) the Regional Road Networks, under the jurisdiction of the Regional Governments.
The Regional Governments can regulate some matters concerning road signs and markings for the roads under their jurisdiction. Thus, if a regional road is part of a European E-road, it is affected by this specific regulation. More precisely, some technical standards can be affected, although in a very limited way as the international agreements signed by the Spanish State oblige the whole Spanish territory, leaving small space Spain to the Regional Governments to introduce changes. Sweden No. Scottish Executive and Welsh Assembly Government can authorise new signs if those prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations are not suitable. Northern Ireland has its own Regulations, although these are based on the UK Regulations, and in Wales there are also Welsh Language Regulations providing for the use United Kingdom of Welsh on traffic signs.
217 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.10. Are there any specific types of signs or markings in which national standards are significantly affected by different local regulations?
As can be seen from the responses shown in Table 57 below, generally few types of signs and markings are affected by local regulations. Again, perhaps the most extreme is in the UK where multilingual signs are permitted in some regions.
Table 57 - Specific types of signs or markings in which national standards are significantly affected by different local regulations
EU State Response Austria In general only rules for direction signing are modified. Yes, The regions intervene for complementary rules of Belgium departmental order of the 11th October 1976. Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark No Estonia No Finland No France No Germany In general only rules for direction signing are modified. Greece No Hungary - Ireland No Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands No local regulations in the Netherlands. Poland Portugal No Slovakia Slovenia No significant differences from the Spanish standards Spain for the National Road Network. Sweden No Multilingual signs (e.g. Wales) and tourist signing (e.g. United Kingdom ‘thistle’ on Scottish tourist signs).
218 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.11. Are there any expected changes in the near future for any issue related to this process?
No changes are expected. The responses given are shown in Table 58 below:
Table 58 – Responses given to question 2.4.11 EU State Response Austria No Belgium No Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark No Estonia - Finland No France No Germany No Greece No Hungary No Ireland No Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands No Poland Portugal No Slovakia Slovenia Spain No Sweden No United Kingdom No
219 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Physical implementation of traffic signing
2.4.12. Which are the entities responsible for the actual implementation of road signs and markings?
In all cases, a mixture of national, regional and local authorities and private companies are employed, see Table 59 for the responses given by each country. In part this reflects the political make-up of the countries (for example the nine federated states in Austria are all responsible for most roads, except motorways and federal roads). Also, the amount of work given to private contractors varies- for example in the Netherlands one private company is used, whereas in Sweden it is national and local authorities. This is an area where more standardisation across the EU could potentially be applied.
Table 59 - Entities responsible for the actual implementation of road signs and markings
EU State Response Austria has 9 federal states. In each state there is a road administration (responsible for the construction of the road infrastructure). The administration for the traffic legislation decides which traffic signs and road markings have to be installed. Usually special plans with the traffic signs and road markings are the basis for the decision (produced by the road administration or by engineering companies) There are different levels of decentralisation in the states. Usually there are three levels: -state ministry -regional state-authorities -district authorities and authorities of large cities
The federal government is responsible for the motorways and federal roads (Remark: The federal government gave the responsibility for administration of motorways and main roads to the ASFINAG (company for financing motorways and main roads)). The states are responsible for the state roads and the cities for the city roads and every other road inside their Austria city limits. The process is decentralised and is in the charge of Belgium local and communal administrations. Cyprus Public Works Dept. / Municipalities / District Offices. Czech Republic The Road Directorate on National Roads, The County on County roads and the Municipality on the Denmark Municipality roads.
220 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response The road owner is responsible. (In state roads- regional road offices usually). But the actual implementation is Estonia allocated to private companies in some regions. Nine Road districts under Finnish National Road Finland Administration. The entities in charge of the implementation of road signs and markings are the entities in charge of road network: -The prefect (representative agent of the States in each French Subdivision called department), -The presidents of general council (elected council in each French Subdivision called department) -The mayors The entities which are allowed to physically implement the signs are the State, Subdivision or Municipal technical services and others roads network administrators like private concession highway or France entities like urban communities). Germany has 16 federal states. In each state there is a road administration (responsible for the construction of the road infrastructure). The administration for the traffic legislation (Verkehrsbehörde) decides which traffic signs and road markings have to be installed. Usually special plans with the traffic signs and road markings are the basis for the decision (produced by the road administration or by engineering companies) There are different levels of decentralisation in the states. Usually there are three levels: -state ministry -regional governments (“Regierungspräsidien”) -district authorities (“Kreisverwaltung”) and authorities of large cities.
The federal government is responsible for the motorways and federal roads (Remark: The federal government gave the responsibility for administration of motorways and federal roads to the federal states). The states are responsible for the state roads, the district authorities for the rural roads and the cities for the city roads and every other road inside their city Germany limits. Local roads are managed by the Municipalities. Province roads managed by the Prefecture (52 prefectures). National roads managed by the Regions (13 Regions). Motorways managed by special state agencies or by private concessionaires.
Greece For some national roads and motorways the signs and
221 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response markings work are performed or approved directly by the Ministry of Public Works. On national roads: County Road Management Non- Hungary profit Company. On local roads: local municipality. National routes: • The Local Authority (Most implementation and maintenance) • The National Roads Authority (Funding, Specific initiatives and contracts, overall management) • Private concessionaires on certain specific sections
Regional and local routes: • The Local Authority (Most implementation and maintenance) • The Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local Government (Funding and overall Ireland management) Italy For national roads (for example E20 and A1) and municipal roads except towns and villages (for example P110 and V110)-Latvian State Roads. Latvia In cities, towns and villages municipality is responsible. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Historically, the Automobile Association (ANWB) was responsible for this. Recently another company Netherlands (Tebodin) was selected, through an open tender. Poland Private Highways - Private concessionaire; National Roads - National Road Administration; Municipal Portugal Roads - Local Authorities. Slovakia Slovenia The entity responsible for the implementation of road signs and parking is the building company in charge of the road Works, regardless of the type of road or Spain geographical situation within the Spanish State. Sweden Regional and local authorities. Highways Agency on motorways and trunk roads (similar to TERN). Local authorities for other public United Kingdom roads
222 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.13. Which is the entity responsible for inspecting the road infrastructure before its entry into service?
There is a difference between the different countries in this regards as can be seen in Table 60 below. In some countries this is by a single authority (eg in Denmark or Latvia) whereas in others (such as Spain, Hungary or the UK) some of this is done by local authorities whereas others are done by national entities.
Table 60 - Entity which is responsible for inspecting the road infrastructure before its entry into service
EU State Response Austria The road administration is responsible for inspecting. The process is decentralised and is in the charge of Belgium local and communal administrations. Public Works Dept. / Municipalities / District Offices / Cyprus Police Department. Czech Republic Denmark The Road Authority. The road owner is responsible. But it is allocated to private companies during the road construction for Estonia example. Road districts, procurement documents define the Finland quality requirements for contractors. The public engineer who works for the French Administration inspects the road infrastructure which is under its responsibility before its entry into service. There is no decentralisation or allocation of responsibilities to regional and/or local agencies regarding national roads network. But for the other types of road (departmental or communal), the local authorities are supposed to inspect their own network because they are France responsible for it. Germany The road administration is responsible for inspecting. National Laboratory of Public Works (KEDE) performs the tests and issues approvals of products. Regional laboratories can perform controls and measurements during and after implementation of road Greece infrastructure. On national roads: County Road Management Non- Hungary profit Company. On local roads: local municipality. Ireland The Local Authority. Italy Latvia Latvian State Roads, Road Traffic Safety Directorate Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Rijkswaterstaat (Public Works Section of the Ministry of
223 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Transport). Poland General Directorate of Transport was performing these inspections on a very sparse basis until recently. Now Portugal these inspections are becoming more systematic. Slovakia Slovenia The Ministry of Transports, Infrastructures and Public Works for those roads belonging to the National Road Network. For the several Regional Road Networks, the responsible bodies are the Regional Departments of Transport and/or Public Works.
National Road Network: within the Ministry, the responsible agency for inspection is the General Directorate for Roads through its provincial delegations (where the road is located). There is a distinction between newly built and upgraded roads: • New roads: the inspection body is the General- Sub-Directorate for Construction; • Upgraded roads or maintenance works: the inspection body is the General-Sub-Directorate for Maintenance and Exploitation.
Regional Road Network: the regional equivalents of the Ministry are the responsible agencies in each region.
Although the several Public Administrations (national and regional) are responsible for inspection, they can delegate in private firms the actual inspection of the infrastructure conditions. These firms would report to the Ministry or Regional Transport Department about the adequacy of the signs and markings to the standards and the Administration would have the last Spain word concerning the approval of the road for use. Sweden Regional and local authorities. Highways Agency on motorways and trunk roads (similar to TERN). Local authorities for other public United Kingdom roads.
224 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.14. Are there any penalties in national law for any inappropriate implementation of road signs and markings?
A wide variety of penalties seem to exist, see Table 61 below. For example, the penalties in Denmark and Sweden are stronger than in Ireland (where no penalties exist). Many countries (e.g. Germany and France) take a middle course and only apply penalties where accidents result. This is an area where more standardisation across the EU could potentially be applied.
Table 61 - Penalties for inappropriate implementation
EU State Response Only if there are accidents caused by an inappropriate implementation the responsible persons may get penalties. There will be a special trial. There are no Austria special laws. Belgium No detailed penalty procedure. Cyprus No Czech Republic Daily penalty paid to the road authority if the binding Denmark requirements are not implemented or respected Yes there are. There is a fine assigned by Road Act. Estonia Police is sanctioning. Finland Contract penalty There are no penalties in national law for such practices. But it is required to remove or modify the implementation if road signs and markings are not conformed. In any case each road network administrator is juridically responsible in case of France accident due to inappropriate maintenance. Only if there are accidents caused by an inappropriate implementation the responsible persons may get penalties. There will be a special trial. There are no Germany special laws. If any of the responsible bodies does not install or installs inappropriate signs or markings the General Secretariat of Public Works (belongs to the Ministry of Public Works) can either ask them for a proper installation or can perform the installation and then Greece request the cost from the responsible body. No penalty but general responsibility of the different road management (on country or local level) exists. In the case of accidents or at arising announcement regarding to inappropriate implementation of road signs and markings jurisdiction gives verdict. The County Transport Authorities (20) can make Hungary supervisions anywhere at anytime. Ireland No
225 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Italy In Codex of Administrative Regulations, penalties for any inappropriate implementation are provided. If a private employer or contractor is setting up inappropriate implementation of road signs or markings, a protocol of violations of administrative regulations is prepared, and he has to pay a penalty,under the Codex of Administrative Regulalation Latvia or see contract. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta No, but if a traffic sign is incorrectly implemented, a Netherlands court may order it to be changed. Poland If the National Directorate of Transport detects any irregularity in public road signalling, its Traffic Services Direction will contact the responsible entities (National Road Administration, Municipalities or highway private concessionaries), recommending the necessary corrections as well as additions (new signs or marks which are missing). If these entities do not agree with the recommendations they must inform the National Directorate of Transport of their reasons. Finally, the National Directorate of Transport will assess these reasons and determine if the corrections are still necessary. If yes, it will inform the competent entity of this decision requiring the introduction of the necessary changes or additions within 30 days. The only penalty foreseen by the Portuguese law regarding violation of public road signalling legislation is the implementation of road signs by any other entity than those determined in the national law (National Road Administration, Municipalities and highway private concessionaries). According to the national classification this is considered as a "light" infringement Portugal and its penalty amounts to € 249,4. Slovakia Slovenia There is a guarantee period of two years for any road sign and parking in any type of road in Spain. Within this period the building companies are fully responsible for the excessive deterioration of the materials and must replace the faulty materials or units.
The competent administration (National Ministry or Regional bodies) undertake the inspections in the roads of their jurisdiction in the guarantee period and Spain launch penalty procedures, if needed. No details were
226 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response provided concerning the penalty system. Yes. There are penalties using road signs and Sweden markings in inappropriate ways. No (except for a private individual), although the Secretary of State has the power to order the removal United Kingdom of unlawful signs.
227 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.15. Are there any expected changes in the near future for any issue related to this process?
Generally not, see Table 62 below. The small change in Denmark is due to a change in the political structure, the change in Estonia is due to sanctioning by their road administration beginning later in 2005. New legislation will be introduced in Portugal.
Table 62 – Responses given to question 2.4.15
EU State Response Austria No Belgium No Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark Yes, Counties will not exist after January 2007. Yes. Estonian Road Administration begins sanctioning Estonia in 2005. Finland No France No Germany No Greece No Hungary - Ireland No Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The fact that construction and maintenance of some signs was granted through an open tender makes it very likely that the contract contains provisions for such Netherlands situations. However, the contract details are not known. Poland Yes, new legislation regarding road markings implementation and inspection will be issued on the Portugal short / medium term. Slovakia Slovenia Spain No Sweden No United Kingdom No
228 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Maintenance of the national traffic signing system
2.4.16. Which are the entities responsible for the maintenance of road signs and markings? Is there any level of decentralisation or allocation of responsibilities to regional and/or local agencies?
Similar to the earlier questions about the implementation of signs there is a difference between the different countries in this regard, see Table 63 for the responses given. In some countries this is by a single authority (eg in Austria), in other countries (such Ireland) some of this is done by local authorities whereas others are done by national entities, and in other countries (e.g. Belgium) the process is completely decentralised.
Table 63 - Entities responsible for the maintenance of road signs and markings EU State Response The road administration is also responsible for the Austria maintenance. Local and communal authorities are responsible. The Belgium system is completely decentralised. District Engineers of the Public Works Department / Cyprus Municipalities / District Offices. Czech Republic Denmark The Danish Road Directorate. The road owner is generally responsible. But the actual implementation is allocated to private companies in Estonia some regions. Road districts, procurement documents define the Finland quality requirements for contractors. This task is under the responsibility of each road network administrator (State, Subdivision, Town for France public network and private concession for highways). The road administration is also responsible for the Germany maintenance. Local roads are managed by the Municipalities. Province roads managed by the Prefecture (52 prefectures). National roads managed by the Regions (13 Regions). Motorways managed by special state agencies or by private concessionaires.
For some national roads and motorways the signs and markings work are performed or approved directly by Greece the Ministry of Public Works. On national roads: County Road Management Non- Hungary profit Company. On local roads: local municipality. National Routes • Local Authorities. Ireland • The National Roads Authority has a funding and
229 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response overseeing function. • The National Roads Authority has pilot maintenance schemes currently on some national routes) • Private Concessionaires have maintenance responsibilities on specific sections
Regional and local routes • Local Authorities. • The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has a funding and overseeing function. Italy For national and municipal roads –Latvian State Roads makes an agreement with a private contractor which is responsible for the maintenance of road signs and Latvia markings. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The Dutch motorist association (ANWB) used to be responsible for this task. However, in an open tender, the company Tebodin was selected to take over this task for the national road network. The work was tendered according to European guidelines and comprises the development of road marking plans and the management of a database.
The large signs above and besides motorways and Netherlands dual carriageways remains the task of Rijkswaterstaat. Poland Private Highways - Private concessionaire; National Roads - National Road Administration; Municipal Portugal Roads - Local Authorities. Slovakia Slovenia For the case of public roads, those from the National Road Network and those from the Regional networks, the entities in charge of the maintenance are the General-Sub-Directorate for Maintenance and Exploitation and the equivalent bodies in the Regional Governments, respectively.
In the case of private concessions, the concessionaire company is the responsible for any maintenance works subject to the inspection of the relevant Administration: the General-Sub-Directorate for Maintenance and Exploitation, for concessions integrated in the National Spain Road Network; and the equivalent Regional bodies, for
230 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response concessions integrated in regional networks.
When the General-Sub-Directorate for Maintenance and Exploitation is responsible for maintenance, its activities are undertaken through the provincial branches of the General Directorate for Roads. Sweden Regional and local authorities. Highways Agency on motorways and trunk roads (this work is often sub-contracted to others). Local United Kingdom authorities for other public roads.
231 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.17. Which is the entity responsible for inspecting the road infrastructure during its life-time? Is there any level of decentralisation or allocation of responsibilities to regional and/or local agencies?
Again, fairly large differences exist between different EU countries as can be seen in Table 64 below. They seem to fall into two groups: those countries that have a single entity responsible (e.g. Denmark or Portugal) and those where multiple agencies are responsible (often these different agencies are in charge of different types of roads, such as national or local, e.g. Hungary or France).
Table 64 - Entity responsible for inspecting the road infrastructure during its life-time
EU State Response The administration for the traffic legislation is responsible. They have to investigate the road infrastructure every second year together with the road Austria administration and police. The answer is no except for one Brussels region which Belgium acts as a pilot town. District Engineers of the Public Works Department / Cyprus Municipalities / District Offices. Czech Republic Denmark The Danish Road Directorate. Estonia The road owner. Road districts, procurement documents define the Finland quality requirements for contractors. This task is under the responsibility of each roads network administrator (State, Subdivision, Town for France public network and private concession for highways). The administration for the traffic legislation (Verkehrsbehörde) is responsible. They have to investigate the road infrastructure every second year Germany together with the road administration and police. On some major roads and motorways during the construction and before opening the quality of the works is inspected by a special state agency (ESPEL). These inspections usually do not include signs and markings.
On some motorways there are internal procedures for Road Safety Inspections before opening. These inspections cover mostly signs, markings and restraint systems.
The same bodies that are responsible for the road maintenance perform the inspections of signs and markings during their lifetime. For the inspections some Greece agencies have their own equipment while some others
232 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response ask for the support of the Regional or Central Laboratories of Public Works.
There is no official national procedure for general assessment of the maintenance performance. Some agencies have internal procedures for assessing the performance of the maintenance contractors. On national roads: County Road Management Non- Hungary profit Company. On local roads: local municipality. National Routes • The Local Authority • The National Roads Authority • Private concessionaires on specific sections
Regional and local routes • The Local Authority - main responsibility • The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Ireland Local Government – spot checks Italy Latvia Latvian State roads, Road Traffic Safety Directorate Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Rijkswaterstaat (Public Works Section of the Ministry of Netherlands Transport. Poland General Directorate of Transport was performing these inspections on a very sparse basis until recently. Now Portugal these inspections are becoming more systematic. Slovakia Slovenia The inspecting bodies are different for roads of the National Road Network and those from the Regional networks: the entities in charge of the inspection are the General-Sub-Directorate for Maintenance and Exploitation and the equivalent bodies in the Regional Governments, respectively.
When the General-Sub-Directorate for Maintenance and Exploitation is responsible for inspection, its activities are undertaken through the provincial Spain branches of the General Directorate for Roads. Sweden Regional and local authorities. Highways Agency on motorways and trunk roads (this work is often sub-contracted to others). Local United Kingdom authorities for other public roads.
233 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.18. Are there any penalties in national law for any inappropriate maintenance of road signs and markings?
Like the earlier question about penalties for inappropriate implementation, a wide variety of penalties seem to exist, see Table 65 below. For example, the penalties in Sweden are stronger than in Finland or Cyprus (where no penalties exist). Many countries take a middle course and only apply penalties where accidents result. Again, this is an area where more standardisation across the EU could potentially be applied.
Table 65 - Penalties in national law for any inappropriate maintenance of road signs and markings
EU State Response Only if there are accidents caused by an inappropriate implementation the responsible persons may get penalties. There will be a special trial. There are no Austria special laws. Belgium No Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark No Yes. There is a fine assigned by the Road Act. Police Estonia are sanctioning. Finland No No penalties in case of violations. But each road network administrator is juridically responsible in case France of accident due to inappropriate maintenance. Only if there are accidents caused by an inappropriate implementation the responsible persons may get penalties. There will be a special trial. There are no Germany special laws. Greece No No penalty but general responsibility of the different road management (on country or local level) exists. In the case of accidents or at arising announcement regarding to inappropriate implementation of road signs and markings jurisdiction gives verdict. The County Transport Authorities (20) can make Hungary supervisions anywhere at anytime. Ireland No Italy In Codex of Administrative Regulations, penalties for any inappropriate implementation are provided. If a private employer or contractor is setting up inappropriate implementation of road signs or markings, a protocol of violations of administrative regulations is prepared, and he has to pay a penalty, Latvia under the Codex of Administrative Regulalation or see
234 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response contract. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands No penalties exist. Poland Portugal No Slovakia Slovenia There is a guarantee period of two years for any road sign and parking in any type of road in Spain. Within this period the maintenance companies are fully responsible for the excessive deterioration of the materials and must replace the faulty materials or units.
No details were provided concerning a penalty system Spain for faulty maintenance. Yes. There are penalties using road signs and Sweden markings in inappropriate ways. United Kingdom No
235 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.19. Are there any expected changes in the near future for any issue related to this process?
Few changes are expected, with the main exceptions of Portugal, Germany and Estonia- where the regulations for investigations are currently being revised and/or new sanctioning procedures are being put in place. Table 66 shows the responses given by each country:
Table 66 – Responses given by each country to question 2.4.19
EU State Response Austria No Belgium No Cyprus No Czech Republic Denmark No Yes. Estonian Road Administration begins sanctioning Estonia in 2005. Finland No France No The regulations for the investigations of the road infrastructure are revised at the moment. But it’s not Germany clear when it will be issued. Greece Unsure Hungary No Ireland No Italy Latvia No Lithuania Luxembourg Malta The fact that construction and maintenance of some signs was granted through an open tender makes it very likely that the contract contains provisions for such Netherlands situations. However, the contract details are not known. Poland Yes, new legislation regarding road markings maintenance and inspection will be issued on the short Portugal / medium term. Slovakia Slovenia Spain No expected changes. Sweden No United Kingdom No
236 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
Open questions to key contacts
2.4.20. In your opinion, what is the main obstacle to integrate international conventions and agreements in the fields of road signs and markings within your national legislation? How could this obstacle be surpassed?
A wide range of obstacles were mentioned, these seem to fall into several general groups: economic considerations (ie the cost of integrating- mentioned by, for example, Ireland), the potential safety disbenefits from replacing a largely effective system with something potentially less suitable (mentioned by Denmark and the UK) and bureaucratic/government speed constraints (mentioned by Hungary, Greece and Cyprus). The responses given are shown in Table 67 below:
Table 67 - The main obstacles to integrate international conventions and agreements in the fields of road signs and markings within each countries national legislation
EU State Response Austria - No real problem because the international agreements Belgium have been applied in Belgium. Cyprus Time consuming procedures. Czech Republic Denmark There are only economical and traffic safety drawbacks Estonia - Finland No main obstacles There is no particular problem because France is well implicated in the international and European working groups dealing with such conventions and agreements. The transpositions of these conventions or agreements France are done regularly. Germany - Two obstacles mentioned: 1. Long bureaucratic procedures for approval and implementation 2. In some cases the lack of expertise from the bodies that are responsible for approval
Two solutions proposed: 1. To impose strict deadlines for the implementation of conventions and agreements. 2. To issue common implementation guidelines for Greece Norms, conventions etc. There was / is no obstacle, but the governmental Hungary process is somewhat slow. 1 Finance of changes necessary seen as waste of scarce public funds. 2 Education of road users in relation to necessary Ireland changes
237 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response Italy We didn’t have any problems, when Vienna convention Latvia was enacted. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands - Poland Although an effort was carried out in order to centralise competences in General Directorate of Transport, they are still significantly dispersed. Therefore, the integration of international conventions and agreements requires a coordinated action among the responsible entities, which doesn't always occur. In short, the main obstacle is essentially an organisational Portugal / institutional one. Slovakia Slovenia Concerning the institutional issues, the main problem is the diversity of national structures. However, this is hard to overcome, and a possible solution could be to reach a high degree of standardisation of “institutional behaviours” instead of re-shaping the national Spain institutions to a unique model. They is very few obstacles to integrate conventions and Sweden agreements Already largely integrated. Issues affecting further integration might be the relevance and appropriateness to UK conditions and traffic law and whether roads might be made less safe by replacing tried and effective systems with possibly less effective United Kingdom alternatives.
238 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.21. In your view what are the main problems regarding road signs and markings in your country? How could these problems be solved or minimised?
The answers seem to fall into vary quite considerably, see Table 68 below for the responses given by each country. Most countries mentioned specific issues. These issues included: • visual complexity/information overload from too much signing information (Germany), • Applying the signing regulations in a stringent manner (Hungary and Latvia), • Problems with road markings in hot weather (Cyprus), • The rapid change of the road system requiring attention to details such as continuity and sign design (Ireland) • Difficulties in communicating changes (France) • Road signs occasionally are poor and worn out, due to finance (Latvia) • Maintaining an up-to-date database of signs/markings (Finland) • The shortage of skilled/trained highway engineers (UK, Portugal and Greece).
Perhaps one way of looking at these problems is to divide the different EU states into those with more established economies and signing systems (eg Germany, France UK and Sweden) where the main problems concern successfully managing and optimising the current system, and those EU states that are experiencing rapid expansion (eg Ireland and Hungary) where the main issues resolve around establishing the correct regulations and systems.
Table 68 – Main problems regarding road signs and markings in each country EU State Response Austria - The main problem concerns the financial cost Belgium regarding the application of new regulations. Main problems relate to the hot weather (for road Cyprus markings). Czech Republic Denmark There are no problems. Estonia Financial means are restricted. Main road network is close to standard. However, a real time database of signs and markings on roads is Finland lacking for the management purposes. One of the main problems is related to the task of new information dissemination. It is difficult to inform efficiently and quickly all the partners involved into road signing system (especially all the road network administrators) but also the drivers when new regulatory provisions come into effect. To solve this kind of problem it is necessary to organize a better spreading of the information (eg by TV-spots, France conferences, informative notes). According to directions signing some problems can be Germany stated because of increasing pressure demanding
239 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response more destinations on directions signs and other types of destinations (e.g. private destinations). There should be a more sensitive consciousness and a better knowledge about the advantages of an appropriate direction signing system and the disadvantages of an overload directions signing system for traffic safety. Generally there are no major problems with road signs. Training the personnel from the responsible bodies and agencies on the selection, design of signs and installation requirements could be very useful for the appropriate use and installation of signs.
On the contrary, there are many problems with road markings. The problems will be reduced when the new guidelines on performance requirements (based on EN Greece 1436) will become a national specification. Hungary Stringency. Continuity, Maintenance, Design All of the issues are related to very rapid change and expansion of the previously under-funded road system accompanied by rapid change in the area of design and standards. It is anticipated that these will be easily resolved in the short to medium term assuming Ireland adequate resources are available. Italy Not always road marking is done duly, the result is poor visibility. Road signs occasionally are poor and worn out. (There is problem with financing.) Not always agreed principles of road signs and Latvia markings are used. Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands - Poland Inability of enforcing the legislation in force, namely in terms of road signs and markings inspections. Lack of Portugal qualified personnel. Slovakia Slovenia Spain No special problems reported. The main problem is to get a uniform use of road signs Sweden and markings. The profession recognises that there is a shortage of skills among practitioners. There are plans to address United Kingdom this by developing new training schemes.
240 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
2.4.22. In your opinion what are the main obstacles to a uniform road signing and marking system at European level? How could these obstacles be surpassed?
Most countries that responded pointed out the costs and potential safety disbenefits from harmonisation simply for its own sake, see Table 69 below. Some countries mentioned specific issues, such as harmonising ‘GIVE WAY’ rules (Denmark), the lack of a European organisation to deal with this issue (Hungary), lack of finance (Latvia) and the commercial interests of road marking manufacturers (Greece). Spain thought that rather than purely trying to harmonise traffic signs, the focus should be on ensuring that there are no safety issues caused by the difference of the national standards.
Table 69 - The main obstacles to a uniform road signing and marking system at European level
EU State Response Austria - The main problem concerns the financial cost Belgium regarding the application of new regulations. Cyprus Existing systems are difficult and expensive to change. Czech Republic There is no need for harmonisation of signs, but GIVE Denmark WAY rules should be harmonised. Estonia Local conditions are different. Each country has had its own systems for a long time, What’s the real benefit of changing then in the view of costs? Direction sign colours vary from country to country, but Finland again, is it necessarily to change? There are two main obstacles. One concerns the cost of harmonization and the other is related to the difficulties encountered for drivers when significant modifications of existing practices are introduced. The sum total of road signs is so huge that any change could involve a very high cost for an efficiency which needs to be demonstrating. It appears also difficult to deal with the transitory period when old rules will coexist with new rules. We believe that these obstacles will be difficult to surpass but it seems possible to work efficiently in the future to harmonize as further as possible the France implementation of new rules or new equipment. Germany - Three obstacles were mentioned: • The fact that most of the road network has already been constructed. • The historical lack of harmonization between the Greece large European countries (France, Germany, Italy,
241 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response UK etc). • The commercial interests of the manufacturers (for road marking materials).
The performance based European Norms that are obligatory for all EU countries should be accompanied by implementation guidelines. These guidelines could be very useful particularly for smaller countries that do not have complete specifications. There is no European organisation continuously dealing with the question. There are some differences even between those countries which are Contracting Parties to the Convention on Road Signs and Signals (and to the European Agreement supplementing that). The first Hungary step in harmonisation would be to solve this matter. Immediate changes to national systems use a lot of resources. Parallel valid systems of signs and markings may be an option with replacement signs and markings being Ireland European standard. This could cause safety problems. Italy Latvia Finance problems Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands - Poland The standard traffic signs are already quite similar, the main problems and differences occur in the direction Portugal signalling systems. Slovakia Slovenia The main problem is the high cost of most of the standardisation measures. In other words, applying a selected standard of a Member State to the others has many drawbacks: • National legislations must be changed: cost in terms of drafting and approving new legislation; • The standards must be fulfilled “on the road”: this means costs in terms of changing to the new standard (road works). This could be overcome by approaching the national standards (not imposing a national standard) and ensuring that there are no safety issues caused by the Spain difference of the national standards. Sweden In general the systems are quite uniform. United Kingdom There are significant differences between countries in
242 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
EU State Response traffic legislation and in driving culture. Existing systems have been developed over many years. Where these are working well, there is likely to be resistance to changing to an unfamiliar system, especially if it's less sophisticated or perceived as less effective than the status quo. Fuller integration is likely to require closer harmonisation of traffic law and agreement on optimum systems for any particular purpose. This would require huge effort.
243 IMPROVER Interim Report: Subproject 4 TREN-04-ST-S07.37022
3. Conclusions This report has described the results of four traffic sign questionnaires given out to all the EU countries in March 2005. The amount of data collected was huge; as such, only key information could be included in this report. Conversely, it must also be noted that data was not successfully obtained from all EU countries; a large majority responded, but the data is not fully complete.
Overall the report shows that there are many areas where traffic signs and markings vary between different EU countries, these include: • The use of road marking ‘GIVE WAY’ lines and the use of road studs. • Some aspects of Standard traffic signs (for example, when they were last revised). • Colours, positions and designs of directional signs- as seen in the illustrated sequences of signs leading to different types of junctions. • Institutional policies and procedures with respect to traffic signs (for example, the organisations in each country responsible for sign maintenance).
The official representatives from most countries pointed out that the costs and potential safety disbenefits of traffic sign harmonisation might be very high. As such, extreme care should be taken in proposing wholesale harmonisation in many traffic signs, or policies concerning traffic signs. Later stages of this project will therefore specifically address further harmonisation needs, and the costs associated with them.
244