Standardization is important. I don't see this type of font on the highways in the two states I've lived and they really look like for private roads and the such. A national consistency is important for uniform view (and yeah, it seems minor. But the other look is so iconic, it's almost part of the national identity). For example, some airports connect directly from freeways into the terminals, the difference in font and sometimes colors, make it clear that you've left the highway and are now on airport grounds. Honestly, maybe clear view could be come the standard... but I don't think it really does make a difference. What really would make a difference is changing the colors from green to blue. White on blue is easier to read than white on green.
I was like "Seriously, we're gonna waste our taxpayer money on something like this?!" until 1:14, glad it's not the case lmao. Still pretty bizarre that this is even an issue..
Overlooked from the reporting: why did the state deviate from an established federal standard in the first place. Federal roads, federal funding, federal standards--the state doesn't get to change the rules.
It was an experiment done by TX, PA, and Federal transportation researchers. Usage had to gain interim approval, and the advent of retroflective coatings practically negated the purported benefits of the new font. Uniformity is more important for overall communication, so this experiment was terminated and the Clearview signage will get gradually replaced back.
Well, y'know, you can always contact your local congress-person and make your complaint there. Quite frankly, there's another legitimate reason: Since the signs are supposed to provide a more readable text at speed, you've just helped out the older folks who may not have as good a vision as a normal driver. If AASHTO (the beureau enforcing sign design regulations) still insists on converting back to the old font, you can say that they're discriminating against seniors, which is a big no-no in the eyes of federal law.
Clearview was found more difficult to read on "negative contrast" (black on white/yellow, like how we print paper) signage, negating its overall usefulness. There were also questions of bias when initial studies compared the readability of new Clearview signage against worn FHWA samples.
I'm surprised that MDOT (from Mississippi where I'm from) don't even use Clearview font on their signs on their highways and interstates, but Texas still does and apparently so does Louisiana, Arkansas, and even Alabama! **There's a Shock** 🤔
Why this showed up in my recommends I have no clue. Though to counter that guy in the park, it’s not just bureaucracy bull. Standardization is very important. These signs were part of an experiment and the experiment is over. Feds determined that the font didn’t actually increase legibility, and especially with the advent of retro-reflective signs, the font choice no longer mattered. So now as the signs reach the end of their service life, they will be replaced with signs using Highway Gothic, the standard font. A bit clickbaity of KXAN to say that it’s going to cost the taxpayers any more than was already going to be spent. It isn’t. Anyways hi from Michigan
Standardization is important. I don't see this type of font on the highways in the two states I've lived and they really look like for private roads and the such. A national consistency is important for uniform view (and yeah, it seems minor. But the other look is so iconic, it's almost part of the national identity). For example, some airports connect directly from freeways into the terminals, the difference in font and sometimes colors, make it clear that you've left the highway and are now on airport grounds. Honestly, maybe clear view could be come the standard... but I don't think it really does make a difference. What really would make a difference is changing the colors from green to blue. White on blue is easier to read than white on green.
I was like "Seriously, we're gonna waste our taxpayer money on something like this?!"
until 1:14, glad it's not the case lmao. Still pretty bizarre that this is even an issue..
I can tell the difference because i love highways
Which one better the clear view or the other one
Overlooked from the reporting: why did the state deviate from an established federal standard in the first place. Federal roads, federal funding, federal standards--the state doesn't get to change the rules.
It was an experiment done by TX, PA, and Federal transportation researchers. Usage had to gain interim approval, and the advent of retroflective coatings practically negated the purported benefits of the new font. Uniformity is more important for overall communication, so this experiment was terminated and the Clearview signage will get gradually replaced back.
Arizona loves this font as well.
Well, y'know, you can always contact your local congress-person and make your complaint there. Quite frankly, there's another legitimate reason: Since the signs are supposed to provide a more readable text at speed, you've just helped out the older folks who may not have as good a vision as a normal driver. If AASHTO (the beureau enforcing sign design regulations) still insists on converting back to the old font, you can say that they're discriminating against seniors, which is a big no-no in the eyes of federal law.
Clearview was found more difficult to read on "negative contrast" (black on white/yellow, like how we print paper) signage, negating its overall usefulness. There were also questions of bias when initial studies compared the readability of new Clearview signage against worn FHWA samples.
I'm surprised that MDOT (from Mississippi where I'm from) don't even use Clearview font on their signs on their highways and interstates, but Texas still does and apparently so does Louisiana, Arkansas, and even Alabama! **There's a Shock** 🤔
Clearview, all the way!
Old font is perfectly fine.. even in the rain.
Why is this recommended 💀
Louisiana has this typeface as well.
Hell Yes!!
Rubbish...we have a new highway in Houston, and they're still using the Clearview font for new signs.
Why this showed up in my recommends I have no clue.
Though to counter that guy in the park, it’s not just bureaucracy bull. Standardization is very important. These signs were part of an experiment and the experiment is over. Feds determined that the font didn’t actually increase legibility, and especially with the advent of retro-reflective signs, the font choice no longer mattered. So now as the signs reach the end of their service life, they will be replaced with signs using Highway Gothic, the standard font.
A bit clickbaity of KXAN to say that it’s going to cost the taxpayers any more than was already going to be spent. It isn’t.
Anyways hi from Michigan
There goes a waste of tax money
What else do they want to waste money on?
Bullshit!
Yeah like why is it a necessity to replace them for a slightly better font.
Bull s*t!! TERN (trans european road network) font is the best !!! and there are open source flavors out there....