For example, in France (and most of Europe, I think), the default is for traffic coming from the right to have right of way. So if you're coming from the left and see the back of the sign, you know you don't have to yield.
The ones I can think of that are words only that might have a better symbolic notation are Dead End, No Outlet, and No Passing Zone.
A handful of good comparison examples there - notably no pedestrian/no vehicle signs, which use clear imagery in Europe
Some like "cross only at cross walks" or "no pedestrian crossing" are not a sign at all in EU. They are either implied by general traffic rules, or implied by traffic rules for given road category, or enforced with infrastructure.
"One lane bridge" EU has specific signs for lane cross section (not for bridges specifically). "Pavement ends" I even consider funny. What comes next after that? "A meadow starts?"
But I've driven in both the US and Europe, and while a lot of the European signs are easy to figure out, a lot of them seem not only non-intuitive but also inconsistent, as well as difficult to read.
For example, "no stopping" is a red circle with a blue background and an X, while "no parking" is the same red circle with the same blue background and a slash, or half the X. Not only is all of this totally arbitrary, but there's almost zero contrast between the red and blue, so the opposite of being fast to recognize, or pleasant.
And then a slash in some cases means "end of" (end of no passing zone) but in other cases it means "no" (no left turn). So it essentially means both "allowed" and "not allowed", but I guess it's based on the color or orientation or something of the slash, or multiple thin slashes vs one big thick one?
I find myself very much preferring the help of "wordiness" in this case. The top priority while driving is clarity in messaging, not economy of space. What the US does, which is actually to combine symbols in many cases with text, gives both quick recognition and unambiguous information.
A red border on the sign is the beginning of something "not allowed" (no parking) or of some limitation (maximum speed limit 50 km/h). Those signs are round.
The limitations are lifted when you see a similar black and white sign, usually barred.
If the sign is triangular with a red border, it means some danger is coming up.
If the sign is a blue background (only, no red border) it's an obligation to do something (must turn right).
Square blue background is usually some kind of "information". Like "parking". You don't have to park. But you may. Sometimes, this information may have other implications, like "one way road, going your way". You don't have to keep moving. But you know no one will be coming from the front.
I got my driver's license in EU first (Slovenia). Then had to pass it again in USA (San Francisco).
The US test was a joke. No parallel parking portion, no highway portion, no complex intersection portion, no hill start portion (in SF!!!), no first aid portion, no ... many things were missing actually. But I did have to show hand signals!? Lol what.
The US test took 10 minutes and we drove around the block. The EU test took an hour, came with mandatory 30 hours of licensed instructor training, and the instructor had to certify on pain of losing their license that I spent at least 3 hours driving at night during training.
Nowadays the EU license, at least in Slovenia, requires passing a "stunt driving" course within 2 years of getting your license. It's been decided knowing how to control a skid in icy/snowy conditions is mandatory, for example.
> a lot of them seem not only non-intuitive but also inconsistent
There is a visual language you have to learn as part of the licensing process. You spend about 5 hours of classroom instruction before even getting your permit to start learning how to drive. There is a logic behind how the signs are structured and you don't have to memorize.
Different countries do use different signs but the iconography is very similar for the most part.
> The top priority while driving is clarity in messaging, not economy of space
I find the EU signs faster to recognize because pictograms are easy. I've got most US signs memorized by now so they work like pictograms. But when you do have to read the sign, takes a lot of attention away from driving imo.
I think part of the difference may also be that in USA you need to drive to participate in society (fundamental right -ish) whereas in much of Europe driving is seen as a privilege, albeit a very useful privilege.
It makes sense if you think of "parking" as sort of a "long term stopping". That is: no stopping at all (includes no parking), short stops only (stopping allowed but not parking), stopping fully allowed (both short stops and parking).
When one is driving at 100km/h, “wordiness” is not really that useful.
I much rather prefer signage in Europe. Colours are consistent with the meanings (red is always “forbidden” or “not allowed”, whereas blue and white means the opposite). Same goes with geometry. There is little to no need for any more descriptive signage.
In the US, I find myself having to read three line signs almost constantly, some of them comically complex. There is even a joke in Futurama about that: https://youtu.be/-sHKlVRnfag
Really don't know what you mean. Signs are large and visible from a long distance away. You've got plenty of time to read, and we're talking about short phrases like "EXIT ONLY" or "TOLL PLAZA 2 MILES". Not paragraphs of literature.
In most countries in Europe that is just a phone crossed by a red line.
A black and white sign with a slash means "end of prohibition", a red sign with or without a slash means "probition" or "restriction". The issue is that a slash is already used to mean "prohibition" so there needs to be a different kind of slash to indicate the end.
> I find myself very much preferring the help of "wordiness" in this case. The top priority while driving is clarity in messaging, not economy of space. What the US does, which is actually to combine symbols in many cases with text, gives both quick recognition and unambiguous information.
I have to ask "What if you didn't understand the language of the state?", it seems the wordiness only works if you understand the language, and if you don't then you're kinda fucked. I wouldn't understand any signs in say Slovenia were they written in Slovenia, but with the current system it's not an issue as the signs look like what I have at home.
I wouldn't deny not all the signs are intuitive, but it's a language with a grammar, and once you get it down, it becomes easy.