The signs were all there
Oct. 28th, 2009 01:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ventaSome years ago, there was a snippet in the back of Private Eye where someone pointed out the hilarious sign on the M40 which read "Use both lanes Oxford A34".
How could one, they said (presumably with sides splitting from the laughter) use both lanes. Surely the sign should advise you to use either lane for Oxford?
Now, while acknowledging that they are technically correct, I'd driven past that sign for years without batting an eyelid. It uses short words and it's easy to understand what it intends to convey, which is pretty much the main criterion for a sensible motorway sign.
When small, I was perpetually amused by the roadworks signs which advise you "Delays possible til October". But it's July, I don't want to be stuck in a queue for three months! I do, however, concede that the sign can't really be improved on; you can't be accurate in four words or fewer. Ditto "Police Slow" signs (I'm a civilian, I can go as fast as I want!) I suppose you could stick a colon in that one, but really only the most perverse alien would genuinely misunderstand it.
Making signs say exactly what they mean would ultimately degenerate into huge hoardings containing several paragraphs of legalese; not a great idea for drivers hurtling by and trying to absorb information at 70mph.
However, every so often I do observe a sign which seems so peculiar that I want to know the backstory. If, for example you saw the following sign, do you think you'd understand it?
Assuming you were a passenger who wished to change floors without climbing stairs, you'd get the general idea that walking the way the little symbol-thing pointed might be a good idea?
So, I want to know what humorous misunderstandings and mishaps led to the placement of the following sign in Reading railway station:
Having added all those extra words, they could have added a 'For' at the front, which would have corrected the only possible ambiguity I can see in my alternative version above.
How could one, they said (presumably with sides splitting from the laughter) use both lanes. Surely the sign should advise you to use either lane for Oxford?
Now, while acknowledging that they are technically correct, I'd driven past that sign for years without batting an eyelid. It uses short words and it's easy to understand what it intends to convey, which is pretty much the main criterion for a sensible motorway sign.
When small, I was perpetually amused by the roadworks signs which advise you "Delays possible til October". But it's July, I don't want to be stuck in a queue for three months! I do, however, concede that the sign can't really be improved on; you can't be accurate in four words or fewer. Ditto "Police Slow" signs (I'm a civilian, I can go as fast as I want!) I suppose you could stick a colon in that one, but really only the most perverse alien would genuinely misunderstand it.
Making signs say exactly what they mean would ultimately degenerate into huge hoardings containing several paragraphs of legalese; not a great idea for drivers hurtling by and trying to absorb information at 70mph.
However, every so often I do observe a sign which seems so peculiar that I want to know the backstory. If, for example you saw the following sign, do you think you'd understand it?
Passenger lifts
→
Assuming you were a passenger who wished to change floors without climbing stairs, you'd get the general idea that walking the way the little symbol-thing pointed might be a good idea?
So, I want to know what humorous misunderstandings and mishaps led to the placement of the following sign in Reading railway station:
Passenger lifts
please follow the
directional arrow.
→
Having added all those extra words, they could have added a 'For' at the front, which would have corrected the only possible ambiguity I can see in my alternative version above.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-10-28 04:17 pm (UTC)I fear that in today's multi-signed society we may have become blind/deaf to sign postings.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-28 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-28 04:27 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-28 04:42 pm (UTC)I had a strange conversation with someone from Thames Water yesterday. Since my water bill said (in large, very black letters) at the top "This amount must be paid in full by Nov 5th" I rather foolishly assumed that that meant I had to pay it in full by Nov 5th. She was faintly amused that I thought that.
It turned out that was totally wrong, and I shall now be paying it in installments beginning on Nov 7th.