Poor design. If you were colour blind, that sign would be very confusing.
No it wouldn’t. That border shape only exists in red for prohibitions. Even if you were colour blind you could see the border. There is no other sign you could mix it up with.
The strikethrough is in use for a different purpose, to chancel a previous sign (i.e. end of the bike lane).
Why would color blind people struggle with this sign? There are no similar looking signs which mean something different.
The closest one would be this one:
And any color blind person is able to distinguish those two easily.
I see how it can be confusing for someone not used to it but for anyone who grew up in a country where this is the default it is perfectly understandable.
Accessibility needs to be universal. There may not be other signs like that in a particular city or country, but the rest of the world uses a line through “do not” signs.
Even a child could understand what it means, compared to different random coloured edge markings. And that’s exactly the point.
We go through all the trouble of making signage without language barriers and still can’t communicate, it’s ridiculous. I would 100% misunderstand European signs in a quick moment even knowing what they should mean, because I have to unlearn 40 years of sign instinct.
Poor design. If you were colour blind, that sign would be very confusing. It needs a line through it.
For example, these signs all mean not to do something, and anyone should be able to figure that out:
No it wouldn’t. That border shape only exists in red for prohibitions. Even if you were colour blind you could see the border. There is no other sign you could mix it up with.
The strikethrough is in use for a different purpose, to chancel a previous sign (i.e. end of the bike lane).
Oh good point about color blindess. I never thought about that.
Why would color blind people struggle with this sign? There are no similar looking signs which mean something different.
The closest one would be this one:
And any color blind person is able to distinguish those two easily.
I see how it can be confusing for someone not used to it but for anyone who grew up in a country where this is the default it is perfectly understandable.
Accessibility needs to be universal. There may not be other signs like that in a particular city or country, but the rest of the world uses a line through “do not” signs.
Even a child could understand what it means, compared to different random coloured edge markings. And that’s exactly the point.
your defaultism is showing. In fact most of the world uses a white sign with red border to mean a prohibition.
and in fact children need to be taught what traffic signs mean all over the world, they don’t magically know it
deleted by creator
We go through all the trouble of making signage without language barriers and still can’t communicate, it’s ridiculous. I would 100% misunderstand European signs in a quick moment even knowing what they should mean, because I have to unlearn 40 years of sign instinct.
same for Europeans in America, we would think all your bike lanes are forbidden for bikes