This is a classic case of "Thing in japan". Yes 'wakaba' mark is cool. But the exact same point can be made about a big red L . Far more ubiquitous. Also there are beautiful medieval crests on British Fire engines.
I doubt that purely wordless, symbolic system was truly the ultimate pinnacle of operational clarity.
I would love to read your article about the beautiful medieval crests on British fire engines, too! No joke, feel free to link something in reply to my comment as well if you have existing articles.
I feel like there has been a lot of unnecessary pushback about 'Thing in Japan' articles on the internet. Guess what, there are cool things everywhere; including Japan. Write about the ones you know about!
>I feel like there has been a lot of unnecessary pushback about 'Thing in Japan' articles on the internet. Guess what, there are cool things everywhere; including Japan.
That's the point of the whole meme. People think it's interesting because of Japan not because of the content itself is interesting.
Did you know there are 12,000 Zabka stores in Poland and they are almost as ubiquitous as konbinis? Guess what, no gives a fuck because it's not Japan but an eastern European country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBabka_(convenience_store)
There are over 12,000 7/11s in the United States, and probably hundreds of thousands of competitors (certainly if you include gas station stores). The thing that's different about Japanese convenience stores is that, 24/7, they sell food that's incredibly high quality compared to what you can get in American convenience stores at extremely low prices, and that doesn't seem to be the case for Zabka?
IMO the author kind of opened themselves up to it when they said:
> And still, in my life here in the United States, words are still needed to convey meaning.
As if the US doesn’t have easily identifiable police and firefighters. Or handicap placards/license plates. Or public transportation logos (such as the NY MTA logo).
I think Japan does a pretty good job with signage in general and some of it is interesting to read about. Some things like the newbie sticker might be worth adopting elsewhere. Other things like the old people sticker might be considered age discrimination in other countries.
But framing it like only Japan knows how to use symbols or “read the air” is just dumb.
And the American symbols symbolize what they signify, too. A stylized wheelchair to indicate physical mobility. An ear with a line through it to indicate deafness. Less poetic, maybe, but the point is to communicate.
> these are not good symbols. None of them have any meaning, they must simply be learned.
They are excellent symbols – for the society they arose in, which was at the other extreme end to the fragmentation, atomization, and attention span erosion we are experiencing today. In their case, choosing esthetics over learning curve totally made sense, because the learning curve was not a concern for them. Our society OTOH cannot afford such niceties.
If all you see there is something "cool", you're missing the more rewarding depths. These symbols speak of a society which was at the other extreme end to the fragmentation, atomization, and attention span erosion we are experiencing today. This allowed them to elevate esthetics to a point we couldn't afford to today. I'm thinking here mainly of those ancient Mon[1] symbols – though something of their spirit lives on in the modern symbols also discussed in the article. Contemplating these evocative designs can help us build a bridge to a societal context that's otherwise almost incomprehensible to us.
Another thing I found fascinating: the way the symbol that marks a fire truck doesn't employ the red color we would expect in the West, and is instead based on the shape of an ice crystal. A bit like an amulet to ward evil away, there's some kind of atavistic magical function still afoot there.
Plenty of these tropes have some truth behind them, even if that truth often gets flattened into a caricature of itself in popular imagination. Then you get the anticaricature caricature (reverse snobbery) where people knee-jerk label everything that rhymes with that trope as a caricature, convinced that's enough to dismiss an argument.
Btw. medieval Europe, or classical Greece, just to give two non-Eastern examples, also had many of the characteristics I mentioned in my comment: a strong communal spirit and shared symbolic life which connects one to a coherent and poetic view of the world. But pointing out ways cultures very different from ours might have been superior in some senses to ours is one of the most triggering moves, especially on a techie-oriented forum like this one.
Those terms seem incompatible. Either you’re a racist and hate certain slices of humanity or you’re a misanthrope and hate all of it. Doesn’t make much sense to hate all and part of it. What exactly did you mean?
Perhaps don’t question people’s education when you know nothing about them and are yourself unable to communicate properly and understand a question. A “racist and a misanthrope” is not the same thing as a “racist misanthrope” (and again, those overlap and are thus nonsensical together). Or don’t you understand how being a “fast cook” differs from being “fast and a cook”?
You are being incredibly rude and accusatory to multiple people without provocation and should consider revising your HN bio. Aside from it not following proper writing structure and being little more than a jumble of words akin to what one would see on Facebook over a picture of a sunset, you’re behaving like the opposite of what it proffers.
You're just trying to distract from the racist misanthropy in this thread. Nobody sensible ever panders to racist misanthropes just to 'be polite'.
Dismissing this article because "its just one of those 'in Japan' posts" is just poor form. A racist (Japan) statement that this article should be diminished in appreciation by an audience because it is "just one of those 'in Japan' posts.." (misanthropic) can be both racist and misanthropic. Racist, because Japan, and misanthropic because "people shouldn't appreciate this post for what it is because its 'just another in Japan' post" ..
Listen, just because you fail at grammar doesn't mean you can't learn things from strangers on the Internet: Racist and misanthrope are two completely different things, and despite your pedantic blathering it is entirely possible to be both, either, or neither. Be neither.
You are stuck on an invented argument, fully in your head, and keep ascribing motivations to people you know nothing about.
I’m not “distracting” from anything. I don’t condone racism or dismissing the article (which I enjoyed) as being “thing in Japan” either. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with how you formulate your disagreement. And it definitely does not mean you are in the right to lashing out at someone who explicitly asked you for clarification. I did not engage to attack you, I did so to understand your argument.
That you chose to be relentlessly negative without provocation is a contradiction of the words in your bio—clearly those don’t represent who you are. If they are meant to be aspirational, do better.
I'm not stuck on anything except completely rejecting racist misanthropy when I see it.
Your statement:
>Those terms seem incompatible. Either you’re a racist and hate certain slices of humanity or you’re a misanthrope and hate all of it. Doesn’t make much sense to hate all and part of it. What exactly did you mean?
.. was simply wrong, because you can be both racist and misanthropic, indeed - and thus your blathering has served only to detract from the point, which is that racist misanthropy is nonsense and shouldn't be tolerated.
>explicitly asked you for clarification.
Yes and you ignored that clarification in your rush to hate a stranger on the Internet. I explained my position: anyone denigrating this article because "its just Japan", is racist and misanthropic. Racist because "Japan" and misanthropic because "dissuading others from appreciating the beauty of the article 'because Japan'".
I believe the same to be true of Britain, by the way - a point I chose to make intentionally. Plenty of things to love about the place. But of course, I could be as racist as any about the British too - their culture provides many reasons to dissuade engagement.
But Japanese culture has many, many wonderfully beautiful things to offer and anyone discounting this fact or dismissing an article about it because "its just Japan and thus not special", should re-think their position.
As for your attempted frothy-mouthed defense of obvious racist misanthropy, yes, true: Opportunities to be better, abound ...
These things are very local then. That big RED L is the only thing I know about new drivers, learners etc. I even googled what the GP said and I've still no clue what was being talked about.
In fact most of the symbols talked about in the article seemed of no meaning to me except looking unique and different and sometimes even nice.
But is ‘Learner’ the japanese word for beginner? English speakers might well have an association with ‘L’, Learner and a car but other language groups might not.
Interesting to read such a colonial comment in 2026 - the British Empire is long gone.
That "L" wasn't used in my European country until recently, and when I saw it the first time I didn't really get what it was supposed to mean. I was guessing that it could be something indicating that the driver didn't have a license and was practicing with someone (something which you can do legally, if the other person is above 25 and has had a license for multiple years, and in areas which are not trafically complicated). But I was thinking it could also mean that the driver had just got the license, but that sounded strange to me as well.. having never heard about any license divisive system being introduced.
I realize I in fact still do not know what the "L" is supposed to mean, in my country.
People can love the Japanese for their unique characteristics and they can love the Japanese for the things they appropriated from other cultures. Just like the British.
Fact is though, in many ways, Japanese culture is a lot more caring, considerate and kind than the British.
>I doubt that purely wordless, symbolic system was truly the ultimate pinnacle of operational clarity.
Agreed, but only because Brits aren't really good at designing things for longevity, whereas the Japanese are great at it.
This seems rather blatantly anti-british? Feels like you're taking your point too far the other way.
How exactly is Britain not a country good at designing things for longevity? It is probably amongst the countries in the world that goes to the most effort to protect its architectural history, and also has some world class modern design schools.
The government also has a unified design system that makes using government digital services really easy.
why is critiquing Japanese design "open misanthropy" but you're more than happy to critique British design?
I would agree, having visited GB a few times in the past, one thing that is apparent is how solid things are built. Mailboxes, yellow cabs, medieval cathedrals.
Its only necessary to point out that the British are the worlds' masters at cultural appropriation and, as well, cultural degradation ... Curry, Reggae, Tea ... Near endless supply of degraded colonies, reaped economies, ruined cultures deemed inferior by the British ruling class .. and this "its not cool, its just Japanese" refrain sure does align with that imperialist view ...
I'm not sure any of those things (curry, reggae, tea) are examples by themselves of cultural appropriation. The first two are artefacts of groups who came to Britain and became part of it - British Indians and British Caribbeans are celebrated as part of Britain today.
As for the British imperialism - I completely agree that the British empire was a disgusting imperialist and racist project that destroyed economies and cultures.
Not to 'whatabout' but it's worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, that the Japanese Empire was at one point a disgusting imperialist and racist project as well, that similarly destroyed economies and cultures.
I think the Japenese designs are interesting, I am not the original thread commenter. I do however agree that there is a lot of 'Orientalism' that still goes on in the modern day, which is itself a form of xenophobia (it is highlighting Japanese culture as something exotic, and others Japanese people, who are just people same as me and you).
I'm not sure why a discussion of Japanese design required you to attack modern British design practices, and conflating criticisms of Orientalism with being imperialist seems a stretch.
The common theme for the discussed symbols is consideration for others.
In New Zealand we require a yellow [L] sign on cars with learner drivers (with learners drivers licenses). However I get the impression that other drivers are less considerate around a car displaying the [L] sign.
I suspect New Zealanders are generally far less considerate than Japanese. Politeness avoids a trillion sharp edges.
We also seem to be copying some of the US predilection of arsehole Ute (pickup) drivers.
> However I get the impression that other drivers are less considerate around a car displaying the [L] sign.
On a related theme - I have found when driving in the North Eastern US, when people put on their turn signal, other drivers will often speed up and close the gap rather than giving them space to merge.
In some other places, a turn signal before a lane change is an ask, to which others respond by creating more of a gap than there originally was. Here, it's not an ask but a statement that you've got enough of a gap already so you're going for it. As such, others don't find a need to react at all, which could mean the gap continues shrinking if it was already shrinking prior.
The signaler needs to have anticipated it and not signaled until this problem doesn't exist, in fact it's scary when someone signals despite this problem because the other driver is led to believe they're unseen. When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap, continuing to do so is a more fuel-efficient way out of the blind spot than using the brake pedal.
Aside: turn signals that automatically flash 3 times with no reasonable way to cancel the remaining flashes when you discover a need to abort a lane change exacerbates the aforementioned scare, so I recommend disabling it.
Where I am, I was taught that activating the turn signals means "I have made a decision to change lanes", so the appropriate reaction from surrounding traffic is to either safely accommodate that choice, or indicate using the horn and/or lights that the decision is unsafe and must be cancelled.
I'm in Scandinavia, and it feels like surrounding regions have similar conventions.
I’m sorry but that is an insane interpretation of turn signals. If you only turn them on once you’re about to execute the maneuver, they’re useless. The whole point of them is to warn other drivers you intend to do something so they can anticipate your movement and allow you to do it safely.
How are turn signals explained in the driver handbook (or equivalent rulebook) in northeastern US? As far as I know they clearly state that turn signals are about intent, so they should be turned on the moment you decide you need to turn or switch lanes.
> The signaler needs to have anticipated it and not signaled until this problem doesn't exist
How do you handle an upcoming left turn (assuming right hand driving) during heavy traffic?
It's not the responsibility of the car changing lanes to optimize the fuel economy of the cars behind, but it is the responsibility of the cars behind to not needlessly impede other drivers from getting where they need to go.
> When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap
Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you? I don't see any reason you'd do this unless you have another free lane to the left and are planning to pass. If you don't then you're just reducing your margins to the next car for no reward, as you'd have to slow down anyway once the gap is "closed".
> How do you handle an upcoming left turn (assuming right hand driving) during heavy traffic?
If I am in the middle lane (lane 2), and I realize I need to get into the leftmost lane (lane 1) to make a turn, but lane 1 is too full for me to simply move into it without affecting others, then I would have no choice but to cut someone off. I would minimize the effect in two ways: by trying to cut off whoever has left the largest gap in front of them (hunting for a gap that might not be the largest now, but will be the largest when I actually use it), and by assuming as much of the rear-end-collision risk as possible until the lane change is complete. Only once my position is optimized to begin the lane change would I signal, because signaling from a suboptimal position could scare people (or give them an opportunity to fight my ability to change lanes). If I can remain in the optimal position for a couple of blinks without any downside, I absolutely will, but in the very heavy traffic we're discussing, typically the tires hit the lane line between first and second blink -- very much not an "ask."
> Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you?
No, I was referring to the gap between the car signaling for a lane change and the car that ends up preventing the lane change, which are in two different lanes. Suppose I'm in lane 2, and a car is in lane 1 a few car-lengths ahead of me. Suppose the car in lane 1 is going slower because they just merged from a left-side entrance ramp. Due to our speed difference, after a moment they're now only 2 car-length ahead of me. Their right turn signal comes on. Now they're 1 car-length ahead of me but they haven't yet changed lanes. Now they're 0 car-lengths ahead of me (i.e., the gap is closed) and cannot change lanes. I did not "let them in" upon seeing their signal, because that would ruin my momentum.
> Suppose the car in lane 1 is going slower because they just merged from a left-side entrance ramp.
Just to clarify, my original post was more about merging from a faster lane of travel into a slower lane, or where both lanes are traveling at about the same speed.
When merging into a faster lane I agree the slower moving car should wait for a suitable opening before signaling and merging. And there are cases where it is safer to pass a car with its blinker on than to slam on the brakes.
But also in general it's unsafe to be traveling at a large speed differential to the lane next to you. And a lot of times even though people probably could ease up a bit to make space for another car, and it would be safer to do so, they don't.
> Use your rearview mirror, check your blind spots, and use your directional signals when changing lanes. Remember these three steps: (1) look, (2) signal, (3) move
To me this means you don't signal until it's actually safe to merge. E.g. if a car is passing me at high speed, I wouldn't turn on my signal until after they had passed. If I did it before they pass, they might think my intent is to merge in front of them, and slam on their brakes, move into a different lane, etc.
In Japan [2] the process is 1) check rearview and side mirrors, 2) turn on blinker at least 3 seconds before turn, 3) while the blinker is on, do a shoulder check for blind spots 4) merge, 5) flash your hazards 2-3 times to thank the driver who let you merge.
So you're also checking for safety before signaling. Step 5 isn't actually required by the way but it's quite common and a nice touch I think.
These are of course cases where you have the option of moving into a faster lane at your discretion. If your lane is coming to an end, you should probably signal well before the end of the lane (although I would still wait to get up to speed before signaling).
> I wouldn't turn on my signal until after they had passed. If I did it before they pass, they might think my intent is to merge in front of them, and slam on their brakes
This is precisely the point I'm making, which I perceive as more typical in the northeastern US than other parts of the US where people use the turn signal to beg for an opportunity to be created that doesn't yet exist (at which point declining to create is seen as actively fighting when it's really not).
Flashing your hazards to thank somebody isn't something I've even seen officially recommended and I see it more as a nuisance in most cases. The communication can't really be unambiguously understood as a "thanks", especially not if you do it for more than one flash.
It's something I personally do about once in a hundred passes if I think somebody really went out of their way to accommodate me, but even then I realize it's detracting from road safety in several ways, such as reaching over to the often awkwardly placed button, and perhaps confusing other drivers.
But I suppose it's a cultural thing, I've heard that in India it's common to use the horn to notify other drivers of your presence even though there's no imminent danger. Which is something that in most other countries would be seen as obnoxious.
>If I am in the middle lane (lane 2), and I realize I need to get into the leftmost lane (lane 1) to make a turn, but lane 1 is too full for me to simply move into it without affecting others, then I would have no choice but to cut someone off.
...you could just miss your turn, instead of cutting someone off?
I'm not exactly well-versed in the term "cutting someone off", perhaps it implies dangerously moving in front of somebody, in which case, obviously it shouldn't be done. But often people are unwilling to slow down to open a gap to let somebody "cut them off", even when it's perfectly safe to do so (low speeds and low speed differences).
By slowing down to let somebody in front of you, you prevent them from missing their turn at practically no cost to yourself. But there's this psychological need to be "first" among many drivers, that also causes other irrational behaviors.
It's not uncommon to see drivers keep way too little distance to the cars in front and pass quite aggressively, only for us to end up next to each other at the next red light anyway. All their wasted gas and lowered safety margins got them was arriving at the light 2 seconds earlier.
I'll admit, many maneuvers can be described as cutting someone off. One so crazy that it would likely cause a collision should never be performed, but I was talking about the low-speed "bumper to bumper traffic" scenario common in lanes dedicated to making a left turn: the reason the gaps are too small for a non-cutoff lane change is a direct consequence of the low speeds involved, say 0-10mph. Imagine cars are nearly stopped for a red light, with gaps varying between 0.2 car length and 0.5 car length (this is much tighter than other parts of the US where gaps while stopped for a red light are typically 1-3 car lengths). I would line the nose of my car to the very front of the 0.5 gap (taking the majority of the risk), signal, cross the lane line within a flash or two, forcing the gap to expand to just over the length of my car, all at just a few mph. This is the type of cutting off I was referring to. And the driver who was cut off has no opportunity to fight; they would if I signaled too early!
Also really strange to me to be prioritizing fuel economy over safety.
And anyway, it's more fuel efficient to leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you so that if they slow down, you can just take your foot off the accelerator to match speed rather than braking. And increase speed again slowly when they speed up (again leaving a healthy gap). For anyone driving a hybrid or EV especially much of those losses can be recovered with regenerative braking.
The other thing is that in places where people use turn signals properly, it's customary to signal a few seconds before you turn (where I live the law is to signal at least three seconds before changing lanes). That gives people plenty of time to ease off the accelerator and make space without needing to hit the brakes.
I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I think the more likely explanation is just that this anti-social behavior has been normalized in the North East. And drivers are either oblivious to others around them, or have adopted the outright aggressive attitude that yielding to other drivers makes you a sucker.
To their credit, traffic fatalities do tend to be lower in the North East than the rest of the country on both a per-capita and per-mile-driven basis [1]. But I suspect it has more to do with other factors like lower speed limits than merging behavior. And this is supported by the fact that Massachusetts (and the most of New England) has the highest per-capita accident rate in the country [2].
So not only are you adding to each other's stress levels. You're also driving up insurance prices and contributing to traffic jams with more accidents.
> Also really strange to me to be prioritizing fuel economy over safety.
If I see that someone is actually changing lanes (in terms of lateral position changing within their lane) then of course I would get out of their way, as it would be unsafe not to. But if they're postponing their lane change (despite their signal already being on) because I'm about to be in their way, that's the scenario I'm talking about when I say I'm going to continue on my way rather than lose momentum/fuel: they are waiting for me to not be in their way, they will continue waiting until I'm gone, and they should've waited until I'm gone before signaling (by "should" I simply mean if they want to assimilate into this driving style). The example scenario in my other recent comment will help illustrate this.
> leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you [...] leaving a healthy gap
I realize that my original comment wasn't clear on this, but the "gap" I'm talking about is between cars in different lanes (again, see the example scenario in my other comment). We can assume no lead car at all.
> I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I won't say it's the best, it's just what I've noticed. But it's not "their path" if they're just hoping to be let in without actually moving. When they start moving, it's a whole different story, and I would get out of there (ideally lane change, but brake if needed). I guess "stealing my attention" would've been a better way to say it than "scare."
I think if you're waiting for them to actually start to change langes before responding, then you're leaving too much up to chance. Because if you go to pass them they might start to merge when you no longer have any safe options available - either because they didn't see you, they misjudged, they're just an a-hole, etc. There are a lot of unpredictable drivers out there.
I think the safest thing - and the most polite - is when they first start to signal, make a determination if you are able to safely give them space by easing off the gas and maybe lightly tapping the brakes (of course you don't want to do any hard braking because that creates a risk of being rear-ended). And if the answer is yes, then let them merge. If you're traveling at a safe speed, leaving a safe distance to the car in front of you, and assuming they signal about the time the car in front of you passes them, this should be doable more often than not.
Indeed, the extremely minor inconvenience of creating a gap in that scenario is very common even in the northeast US. It's the other half of the spectrum, where it's a more severe inconvenience, that it's uncommon for a northeastern driver to accommodate, from which the perception arises that we fight people who are signaling. The signaler is the one picking the fight, and we simply don't entertain it.
I've had the same experiences as the parent commenter when learning to drive in Sydney. In general drivers in the bigger cities seem to be very aggressive.
Sydney drivers are very aggressive, but IME they do cut learners some slack. The learners just don't realise how much more aggressive people normally are... The 80km/h limit doesn't help either, as it forces a bunch of overtaking conflicts on freeways.
> It surprises me to hear that about NZ? As I think of NZ, as our friendlier cousin.
Kiwi here. Our driving is, in general, absolutely atrocious.
I've driven in America, Australia, UK, Canada (also India, but let's exclude that for this purpose). Out of all these, NZ is the worst to drive in. Aggressive drivers (especially Ute/truck drivers). Drivers that shouldn't be on the road because they don't know how to drive (Toyota Aqua drivers!). People that drive totally oblivious to their surroundings. And then you have the selfish ones. They won't stay on the left-most lanes if not passing, they won't move to the left if another vehicle is behind them, and when on a single lane approaching a double lane section (overtaking lane), they will start to speed up so the cars behind them can't overtake. I think it comes down to the 'tall poppy syndrome' that Kiwis are known to have.
Never experienced this kind of driving anywhere else. Other places, the drivers would have the courtesy to move out of the way if other vehicles are behind them.
Can't visit that site from NZ. I've mostly seen kits for lifting 4WDs in NZ.
And I think the arsehole ute/pickup drivers are more of a tradie demographic.
Lifted 4WDs here seen to most commonly be private older vehicles owned by a wider cross-section of society (lifted for image/status or offroad access), and perhaps are rarely work vehicles. Think lifted 1996 rough Land Cruiser, not a showoff expensive new Ford.
It’s funny, because I felt that drivers were the chillest in New Zealand compared to anywhere in Europe, North America or Australia. There are regional differences (for example somebody mentioned Sydney here, which is truly different than for example North from there like Brisbane, Cairns; or obviously different parts of Europe can be vastly different), but I experienced the calmest driving experience in my whole life in and around Auckland. I labeled exactly zero other people as idiots there, but my scale is probably different than locals’. I drove a lot in Eastern Europe and South Italy. Compared to those places, New Zealand is heaven regarding this aspect.
That's nuts. I have seen a car in my city with a sticker that says:
NEW DRIVER
I'm freaking trying!!
It makes me smile every time. I honestly had a hard time when I was first learning, and especially transitioning to driving in an urban environment. I would say those streets, intersections, etc. were poorly designed, but of course, none of it was designed, urban road designs simply "happen" and people need to just improvise their way through it.
Also in the UK and Aus. It's bizarre that a sign saying "I'm learning, be kind" encourages some people to monster you, follow you swearing, generally hassle you.
(33 years ago, still in my memory)
It's as if they think it means HTFU and then go to hazing.
There has been an explosion of “student driver” stickers here in the SF Bay Area. It’s completely voluntary, and most the vehicles appear to be driven by people in their 30s.
My son waited later to get his learning permit. I’ve met folks living it cities who never got driving licenses because there was no need. Could indeed be new drivers in their 30s.
Near me, it appears to be a decal parents are adding for the benefit of their high schoolers becoming new drivers.
It was very surprising for me when I visited the US to see just how much space was wasted writing everything out on every sign and sometimes in giant words on the road.
It did also make me a bit worried about the expected level of driver education...
>It did also make me a bit worried about the expected level of driver education...
Not just driver, but of the general population. A few decades ago, the general reading level was at the 6th grade (thanks to the policies of Ronald Regan) and republicans think that is too high and have been working intensely to lower it. Won't be surprised if it's dropped given the "golden" opportunity of covid. I know it's only been a few years (centuries for most Americans) since Betsy DeVos was secretary of education. Remember that era?
To me it's odd to imply people must be stupid because they're expected to read a few simple words such as "Left lane must turn left" rather than to memorize a bunch of symbols.
American signs very frequently combine both styles - for instance, you see the above words next to a sign with arrows for whatever lanes, wordlessly illustrating the turn types permitted.
If someone is a new driver, who hasn't seen the symbolic signs enough, the word signs are a good fallback. The goal is to maximize accessibility.
People have seen the symbols since childhood, and as far as I know in every European country it's necessary to pass the exam on knowing what they mean before starting practical driving lessons.
Driving in Europe would be completely impossible without them. I have no idea what the Greek word for "no parking or stopping between 09 and 15" is, or the Croatian word for "left".
I agree - to me, that is the main practical reason Europe is a special case well-suited to symbolic signs.
The US doesn't have nearly that issue, since we have tons of symbolic signs, and few languages, which share a ton of close cognates anyway. For instance, most Mexicans I've heard will use the verb "parquear" or "aparcar" to mean "to park" rather than "estacionar" - so as you might expect, they have zero trouble decoding a sign saying "NO PARKING 9AM - 6PM" which is one of the most complicated text-only signs you usually see.
I didn't say they were stupid, I said I was concerned about their level of education
> If someone is a new driver, who hasn't seen the symbolic signs enough, the word signs are a good fallback. The goal is to maximize accessibility.
That's the thing I'm concerned about! In Europe you're not allowed onto the road unless you have already proven that you have memorised all the symbols and can identify them on demand. You don't need to maximise accessibility because the required level of education is higher.
The system of signs used is an independent question from the level of driver education (which probably is generally lower in the USA than in most European countries though), which also is another question from whether people "are stupid".
The obvious benefit of the European style is that you don't need to speak the language in order to understand the signs, something that is clearly less important given the relative homogeneity of language in the USA.
But at least to me, the European road signs are also more quick to read. For example, the "only right turns" and "speed limit 60" are exactly the same shape and color in the USA, while in Europe there is more of a logical system (which also means you don't "memorize a bunch of symbols", you learn the "language" of the signs), such as blue disc means "mandatory", red circle means "prohibited", red triangle means "warning", etc.
Both have pretty enjoyable design language. The US signs follow colors, red for prohibition, white for rules, yellow for hazards, green for directional and blue for service. For Europe or the Vienna convention that much of the world uses, in respective order it's red for prohibition, circles for rules, triangle for hazards.
The "Limited Express" logo existed only until the railway was privatized, if I read the article correctly. In any case I haven't noticed it, and you know when a train is a limited express - it's right there on the board announcing incoming trains (and if it's your train then you already have a limited express ticket and you know the exact time it arrives). And, finally, there's an audio announcement which says that it's a limited express. But I'll look for the logo the next time I'm at the station, it would be interesting if it's still there. I actually hope so.
The yield triangle is super common here (California and everywhere else I've been in the US). It's even on your image.
No parking is usually a red curb or striped out area, which is different but also nonverbal. The complication is that many places have a EULA on parking spots that reads something like "No parking, 9-5pm, except on Tuesdays and full moons, or in a yellow vehicle, or by written agreement with a minimum of two signatures not including Bob". Good luck putting that in an icon.
That "no stopping" sign is unfamiliar to me, I guess we write it out but it's a pretty rare thing here to not allow stopping.
Most of the rest is familiar and/or obvious except the ones that have German words on them. Many of the concepts in writing don't exist on the German signs, I don't know if you don't have these signs or just not listed on your chart. Some of the English ones are just tooltips; it's never ok to stop on a railroad track but someone thought a reminder would be nice.
> "No parking, 9-5pm, except on Tuesdays and full moons, or in a yellow vehicle, or by written agreement with a minimum of two signatures not including Bob". Good luck putting that in an icon.
I have also noticed that parking rules are usually much simpler in the EU than in the US, and maybe the format just makes it cumbersome enough to spell out abstruse rules that in the end, the rules just have to stay simple enough.
It's not totally true though because lately many cities in France have enacted complicated parking rules that are explained nowhere except on a buried page on their website that might or might not be up to date. But that's just because modern societies are straying further and further away from the rule of law with every passing day, and there is nothing that citizens can do about it.
> Interesting that a lot of US road signs have words on them... whereas in Europe drivers need to learn what they mean
I mean... Europe had to develop a system that works regardless of whether you speak the local language. The USA assumed every driver would speak English. I would tend to favor the European strategy, though given how we've held out on adopting the metric system I won't hold my breath.
I don't see anything particularly special about these symbols. Don't get me wrong, I like Japan but while these icons look nice, don't most symbols already speak without words?
I always find it interesting to learn about symbols or iconography that a culture takes for granted that would be unknown or even invisible to an outsider.
Japanese heraldry is particularly captivating because of its apparent influence on corporate logo design of the 1960s. Between mon and traditional Japanese architecture, it’s eye-opening to see parallels between post-war American modernism and millennia of Japanese design.
In the spirit of this article, Cabel Sasser [1] once jokingly referred to U+1F4DB as “tofu on fire,” but eventually learned it is universally understood by Japanese people as a child’s school name tag.
For a non-Japanese example, it wasn’t until I visited Europe that the “fleeing man” universally used for exit signage over there would have meant anything to me. You can drop that icon into something and immediately convey danger, flight to safety, etc.
What should be viewed as more unique actually is how verbose North America is. Especially in the car part that I know of, watching car reviews online - road signs or even buttons in a vehicle that would be symbols in Europe or Asia are written out.
I remember being in some American cars and seeing quite a few buttons being labelled in plain English, while an equivalent European car would certainly have used various symbols on those buttons (think 'Fan' instead of a fan icon). I'd imagine in Europe this is done at least in large part to not have to translate all those buttons and swap them out for each market in Europe (or at least have untranslated buttons and such be reduced to a minimum). Meanwhile, an American car would have been made with an America First attitude, and adaptations pertinent to other markets wouldn't have been front of mind (it's not like this specific example would have been a problem in Canada for that matter). I haven't been in an American car in a while though, so I don't know if this trend still loves on. It's probably become irrelevant given the infotainment and such will have to be translated anyway.
We complain about bad symbols, or symbols introduced without any explanation or time to learn them.
The symbols on a European car (TBH I've never noticed the difference in a hired American car) don't have this problem. They refer to real things, like lights and fans.
Symbols are hard. They can be done well. I don't think many would mind changing a 'call' button with a '[telephone receiver icon]' button, but those kinds of examples are probably in the minority.
It’s weird because no one has a phone that looks that way now. Does the younger generation even know that it’s a phone? Same with a lot of software iconography.
I don't think it's much worse than having an icon of mobile phone from 90s with a grid of buttons and external antenna. Almost no one is using those either. And a featureless rectangle with rounded corners in the shape of modern smartphone doesn't make a good icon. The best you can do is rectangle with circle for pre iphone X style home button or more generic slots for speaker/microphone which still makes a bad icon and are going away.
Having an icon of smartphone in a smartphone for the call app wouldn't be very helpful. And considering modern usage a smartphone doesn't even a have a strong association with calling.
I mean, I knew how a rotary dial worked (from a UX perspective) just through watching films before I ever got to handle one (and I've never placed a real call with one), so I'd assume that gen Z and A can still recognise a ye olde phone, assuming its not one with some wild design that's on the edge of the (Graham) bell curve of what constitutes a normal 'phone' shape.
Even then, most call icons I've seen don't only have the receiver as part of the icon, but some waves to, to indicate sound (speaker/sound icons often do the same, unless intend to mean 'mute', but that's usually paired with a cross or something). Given that, you could probably get away with anything half-moon-ish shaped, so long as it also has those waves on the upper end of the icon, and it'd still be recognisable as a phone receiver and a 'call' icon (please don't do that though. Just make a normal icon).
They are interesting for a variety of reasons. One of which is, while some are similar in function to, say, the "handicapped tag" that gets you pick of the best parking spaces in the United States, they are mainly enforced through social convention rather than law. This gives the symbols greater reach than laws, encouraging helpful behavior that can't be effectively legislated. Because Japanese culture is based on social harmony and mutual respect for norms, they're actually effective.
Secondly, because they are enforced by social convention, they can be very abstract which helps to reduce stigma. The aforementioned handicapped sign is clearly an abstract silhouette of a person in a wheelchair, which is very, very on the nose compared to a butterfly, clover, or heart. Similarly, the bicolor chevron indicating "new driver" (which I first encountered as a roll-up item in the Katamari Damacy series) is a whole lot less obtrusive than the "dunce cap" worn by driver-education vehicles in the USA (typically, a large sign or signs reading "STUDENT DRIVER" or similar mounted on the roof of the car). American drivers would prickle at having to have something like the "dunce cap" on their vehicles for a year after getting their license, but if it were an obvious but unobtrusive and abstract symbol like the chevron, public support for requiring the symbol on the vehicles of even newly licensed drivers (probably a good idea) would increase.
There is a general culture that one sometimes sees which treats anything related to Japan as highly remarkable. Ancient Japanese swords can literally cut through diamond like butter by being folded over 1 000 times after all.
Due to a favorable exchange rate a lot of people are traveling to Japan these days, and encountering these unfamiliar symbols for the first time and perhaps wondered what they mean.
Yeah. The symbols "speak without words", but no one hears their meaning without learning it in advance. They're pretty and foreign, but not particularly communicative.
My reading of it is that it isn't the use of symbols that is notable, but rather here are a few handfuls of roles that symbolic decals and signs have been given in Japan, most of which we don't have in North America at least. A lot of them are quite smart. Sure, the special badge for the front of a police or fire vehicle is pretty redundant, but it would be nice if we had a universal understanding of a couple of these just as we understand what the blue handicap icon means. I would nominate the best as:
1. The cross + heart one for people with hidden disabilities. This is probably top of mind for me because I have a family member who could use some extra understanding due to a condition.
2. The new driver, elderly driver, and deaf driver. The first one is obviously so useful that we've just created dozens of one-off text decals (clearly inferior, as they have to be noticed, read, and interpreted, rather than just recognized). It should be handed to you along with your permit and made compulsory like Japan describes.
As for the elderly one, it would be useful to tip us off to give them more space, and also to inspire us to think of our grandmas when we see such a car making a mistake on the road, instead of defaulting to assuming the driver is a deliberately uncourteous prick as we sometimes do.
(As for the "if people are too old to drive correctly, we should take their licenses away" argument, let's assume it's been made, and that someone has pointed out the tradeoffs of that policy in the real world that we live in.)
Maybe whats special about them is that in spite of their lack of beauty they have nevertheless become widely adopted by a society very keyed toward symbolic representation, and in that context whether or not you find them beautiful is irrelevant to the broader discussion, which is that symbols are social and only perpetuate because the culture which originates them finds them aesthetically appealing, useful, and necessary to the function of that culture.
>Don't get me wrong, I like Japan but while these icons look nice, don't most symbols already speak without words?
Yes? No? Whats your point? This is an interesting article about some beautiful cultural symbols. What is so wrong with you that you feel you have to degrade it?
Very interesting but the comparisons are somewhat US-centric. For example, there is an equivalent to the heart and cross in some western countries which is the sunflower lanyard.
Several years back I lived in Tokyo for a couple of years. I like learning the local language. I could mostly get by with the spoken Japanese (Nihongo). Tried to learn the script but failed miserably. It's a combination of Hirgana alphabets, Katakana alphabets and to top it all 10s of thousands of Chinese Kanji. Loved my stay, very polite people. I think their vocabulary doesn't have the word impolite (polite and less polite). I would say Japanese script is one of the hardest if not hardest.
I think the fact that these symbols are "not words" is not in itself super earth-shattering. What really matters is whether they have to be learned like words. You could learn the words "New Driver" as a single "symbol", or you could learn the beginner symbol. The advantage of a verbal label is you can understand it without learning it, if you know the system its embdded in (i.e., English); its disadvantage is it's a big more complex and harder to distinguish from other symbols in that system if you don't know the system. The advantage of the symbol is it's compact and can be learned without having to take on the full complexity of a linguistic writing system; the disadvantage is it has to be learned separately by everyone, even those who already know a much more powerful system (namely, writing).
There are limits to both. Obviously it wouldn't be effective to have a bumper sticker that says "This driver has been driving for less than a year, so please use caution around them"; if you lean too much on the power of writing, you make it too hard to quickly identify the meaning. On the other hand, it's not easy to come up with a wide variety of sui generis symbols and still have them be visually distinguishable at a glance, so there's also a limit to how far that approach can get you.
I do wonder whether there is some link between differential reliance on symbols of this sort and the use of alphabetic vs. nonalphabetic writing systems in different languages/cultures. Like, crudely speaking, is it the case that, because you already have to learn so many separate symbols to read Japanese, learning a few more for stuff like "elderly driver" isn't much of an extra load? Or is it the reverse, that because you have to learn so many symbols to read Japanese, they want to make these separate symbols for a small set of important meanings so people can learn them even if they don't know how to read? I'm not sure whether there's a real link here or not but it's interesting to think about.
Slightly related cool one that my japanese family explained me is that 'w' was used for 'warau' (aka "lol") in online japanese speech.
And so for "laughing a lot" people would write 'wwwwwwww'.
But then 'wwwwwwwwww' looks not unlike grass.
So now to say they're laughing a lot, they're using the real kanji for grass.
We went from 'w', a romanji used as a shortcut for a japanese word, to a kanji because, visually, many 'wwwwwwww' looked somehow like grass.
It's fascinating how in Japan the approach feels more visual. I mean: we may be doing similar things with our "romanji" (roman characters, as japanese calls them) but it's less common.
One thing I'd add: the "kuuki wo yomu" concept extends beyond symbols
into everyday social cues too. A classic example is the "genkan"
(entryway) — the slight step-up from outdoor to indoor floor level
silently tells you where to remove your shoes, no sign needed.
The whole house layout enforces the unspoken rule.
Train station melody chimes are another great example — they differ
by station and line, so locals unconsciously recognize which station
they're at by sound alone, without reading anything.
There are countless other forms of "reading the air" throughout
Japanese daily life. I'd genuinely recommend visiting Japan once
to experience it firsthand.
If you hear a Japanese person yell "K.Y.! K.Y.!" you'd better blush, and not because they're referring to a fun-times lubricant. It stands for "kūki yomenai", literally "cannot read the atmosphere". Kind of like "Hey, read the room, asshole!"
The article is decent, but the headline is saying something demonstrably false - evidenced by the article itself.
Not one of the symbols can possibly be understood as to its intended meaning without learning what the symbol represents - that is to say, simply by looking at any of them in no way whatsoever suggests, hints, or shows their meaning in the appropriate context.
I understood the article to mean, for example, that the help mark allows people on a train to signal "though I may not outwardly appear like I am disabled, I do have a need for priority seating". And thus people would (hopefully) offer up their seat without needing to be asked with words.
I don't think they meant that the symbols should be universally understood without need for explanation. That would be accomplished separately through some sort of public education campaign. In the case of the "help mark", they actually explain what it means in multiple languages in a big sign right above the priority seating [1].
True, though I think the point they're aiming at is that symbols like [new driver mark] contrast with literal pictograms like [symbol of person in wheelchair]. You can infer/guess the meaning of [symbol of person in wheelchair] 'without words' in a way that you can't with [new driver mark], because [symbol of person in wheelchair] is communicating with a picture instead, while [new driver mark] appears to be purely convention. (At least, the article doesn't seem to suggest otherwise.)
This is a classic case of "Thing in japan". Yes 'wakaba' mark is cool. But the exact same point can be made about a big red L . Far more ubiquitous. Also there are beautiful medieval crests on British Fire engines. I doubt that purely wordless, symbolic system was truly the ultimate pinnacle of operational clarity.
I would love to read your article about the beautiful medieval crests on British fire engines, too! No joke, feel free to link something in reply to my comment as well if you have existing articles.
I feel like there has been a lot of unnecessary pushback about 'Thing in Japan' articles on the internet. Guess what, there are cool things everywhere; including Japan. Write about the ones you know about!
>I feel like there has been a lot of unnecessary pushback about 'Thing in Japan' articles on the internet. Guess what, there are cool things everywhere; including Japan.
That's the point of the whole meme. People think it's interesting because of Japan not because of the content itself is interesting.
Did you know there are 12,000 Zabka stores in Poland and they are almost as ubiquitous as konbinis? Guess what, no gives a fuck because it's not Japan but an eastern European country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBabka_(convenience_store)
"no gives a fuck" is a bit dramatic
there are memes about zabka on social media as well (i've personally seen some on insta and tiktok), maybe not in the same scale, but there are.
There are over 12,000 7/11s in the United States, and probably hundreds of thousands of competitors (certainly if you include gas station stores). The thing that's different about Japanese convenience stores is that, 24/7, they sell food that's incredibly high quality compared to what you can get in American convenience stores at extremely low prices, and that doesn't seem to be the case for Zabka?
I think what stands out is that American 7/11s sell particularly low quality food.
Americans focus on Japan, but they could make the same comparison with many other countries.
Maybe because it's OK to be worse than Japan (it's Japan! The orient! The mystery!) but embarrassing to be worse than Poland.
And you do see a bunch of articles and videos online about Buc-ee's
If you write an article about Zabka stores and what's unique and interesting about them I'll probably read it.
[dead]
IMO the author kind of opened themselves up to it when they said:
> And still, in my life here in the United States, words are still needed to convey meaning.
As if the US doesn’t have easily identifiable police and firefighters. Or handicap placards/license plates. Or public transportation logos (such as the NY MTA logo).
I think Japan does a pretty good job with signage in general and some of it is interesting to read about. Some things like the newbie sticker might be worth adopting elsewhere. Other things like the old people sticker might be considered age discrimination in other countries.
But framing it like only Japan knows how to use symbols or “read the air” is just dumb.
And the American symbols symbolize what they signify, too. A stylized wheelchair to indicate physical mobility. An ear with a line through it to indicate deafness. Less poetic, maybe, but the point is to communicate.
The U.S. does tend to use words where other cultures often use iconography. Road signs are a prime example.
I think the point is more that nobody thinks weeb content is good except for weebs.
Or, if you like, it’s still all just orientalism.
Yeah, these are not good symbols, except the help mark. None of them have any meaning, they must simply be learned.
I recognize some of them, from seeing them in Japan, but I thought they meant some kind of taxi.
A symbolic ear would be better to designate deafness, a walking stick age.
> these are not good symbols. None of them have any meaning, they must simply be learned.
They are excellent symbols – for the society they arose in, which was at the other extreme end to the fragmentation, atomization, and attention span erosion we are experiencing today. In their case, choosing esthetics over learning curve totally made sense, because the learning curve was not a concern for them. Our society OTOH cannot afford such niceties.
You might think, but those symbols could also be stigmatizing. Or personally offensive.
Imagine being a 75-year-old who runs ultramarathons, having to have a walking stick on their car.
A hearing impaired person may not want to be symbolized by their less-than-well-working body part.
The symbols used in Europe are ears. (Not on cars but in general.)
I doubt the deaf people care, though I also don't doubt at all that some virtue signallers are highly offended on their behalf.
The most obvious British example is pub boards. Everyone was illiterate so they only knew pubs by the image on the board, e.g. Rose & Crown
If all you see there is something "cool", you're missing the more rewarding depths. These symbols speak of a society which was at the other extreme end to the fragmentation, atomization, and attention span erosion we are experiencing today. This allowed them to elevate esthetics to a point we couldn't afford to today. I'm thinking here mainly of those ancient Mon[1] symbols – though something of their spirit lives on in the modern symbols also discussed in the article. Contemplating these evocative designs can help us build a bridge to a societal context that's otherwise almost incomprehensible to us.
Another thing I found fascinating: the way the symbol that marks a fire truck doesn't employ the red color we would expect in the West, and is instead based on the shape of an ice crystal. A bit like an amulet to ward evil away, there's some kind of atavistic magical function still afoot there.
[1] the wikipedia page linked from the article is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_(emblem)
This is just the trope of the "wise and mystical oriental"
Plenty of these tropes have some truth behind them, even if that truth often gets flattened into a caricature of itself in popular imagination. Then you get the anticaricature caricature (reverse snobbery) where people knee-jerk label everything that rhymes with that trope as a caricature, convinced that's enough to dismiss an argument.
Btw. medieval Europe, or classical Greece, just to give two non-Eastern examples, also had many of the characteristics I mentioned in my comment: a strong communal spirit and shared symbolic life which connects one to a coherent and poetic view of the world. But pointing out ways cultures very different from ours might have been superior in some senses to ours is one of the most triggering moves, especially on a techie-oriented forum like this one.
Hey, I mean this seriously: you might be a racist misanthrope.
I think you meant to reply to the parent comment instead?
Those terms seem incompatible. Either you’re a racist and hate certain slices of humanity or you’re a misanthrope and hate all of it. Doesn’t make much sense to hate all and part of it. What exactly did you mean?
[flagged]
Perhaps don’t question people’s education when you know nothing about them and are yourself unable to communicate properly and understand a question. A “racist and a misanthrope” is not the same thing as a “racist misanthrope” (and again, those overlap and are thus nonsensical together). Or don’t you understand how being a “fast cook” differs from being “fast and a cook”?
You are being incredibly rude and accusatory to multiple people without provocation and should consider revising your HN bio. Aside from it not following proper writing structure and being little more than a jumble of words akin to what one would see on Facebook over a picture of a sunset, you’re behaving like the opposite of what it proffers.
You're just trying to distract from the racist misanthropy in this thread. Nobody sensible ever panders to racist misanthropes just to 'be polite'.
Dismissing this article because "its just one of those 'in Japan' posts" is just poor form. A racist (Japan) statement that this article should be diminished in appreciation by an audience because it is "just one of those 'in Japan' posts.." (misanthropic) can be both racist and misanthropic. Racist, because Japan, and misanthropic because "people shouldn't appreciate this post for what it is because its 'just another in Japan' post" ..
Listen, just because you fail at grammar doesn't mean you can't learn things from strangers on the Internet: Racist and misanthrope are two completely different things, and despite your pedantic blathering it is entirely possible to be both, either, or neither. Be neither.
You are stuck on an invented argument, fully in your head, and keep ascribing motivations to people you know nothing about.
I’m not “distracting” from anything. I don’t condone racism or dismissing the article (which I enjoyed) as being “thing in Japan” either. That doesn’t mean I have to agree with how you formulate your disagreement. And it definitely does not mean you are in the right to lashing out at someone who explicitly asked you for clarification. I did not engage to attack you, I did so to understand your argument.
That you chose to be relentlessly negative without provocation is a contradiction of the words in your bio—clearly those don’t represent who you are. If they are meant to be aspirational, do better.
I'm not stuck on anything except completely rejecting racist misanthropy when I see it.
Your statement:
>Those terms seem incompatible. Either you’re a racist and hate certain slices of humanity or you’re a misanthrope and hate all of it. Doesn’t make much sense to hate all and part of it. What exactly did you mean?
.. was simply wrong, because you can be both racist and misanthropic, indeed - and thus your blathering has served only to detract from the point, which is that racist misanthropy is nonsense and shouldn't be tolerated.
>explicitly asked you for clarification.
Yes and you ignored that clarification in your rush to hate a stranger on the Internet. I explained my position: anyone denigrating this article because "its just Japan", is racist and misanthropic. Racist because "Japan" and misanthropic because "dissuading others from appreciating the beauty of the article 'because Japan'".
I believe the same to be true of Britain, by the way - a point I chose to make intentionally. Plenty of things to love about the place. But of course, I could be as racist as any about the British too - their culture provides many reasons to dissuade engagement.
But Japanese culture has many, many wonderfully beautiful things to offer and anyone discounting this fact or dismissing an article about it because "its just Japan and thus not special", should re-think their position.
As for your attempted frothy-mouthed defense of obvious racist misanthropy, yes, true: Opportunities to be better, abound ...
I've never heard of a big red L but I've known about the Japanese new-driver icon for decades.
These things are very local then. That big RED L is the only thing I know about new drivers, learners etc. I even googled what the GP said and I've still no clue what was being talked about.
In fact most of the symbols talked about in the article seemed of no meaning to me except looking unique and different and sometimes even nice.
But is ‘Learner’ the japanese word for beginner? English speakers might well have an association with ‘L’, Learner and a car but other language groups might not.
Interesting to read such a colonial comment in 2026 - the British Empire is long gone.
That "L" wasn't used in my European country until recently, and when I saw it the first time I didn't really get what it was supposed to mean. I was guessing that it could be something indicating that the driver didn't have a license and was practicing with someone (something which you can do legally, if the other person is above 25 and has had a license for multiple years, and in areas which are not trafically complicated). But I was thinking it could also mean that the driver had just got the license, but that sounded strange to me as well.. having never heard about any license divisive system being introduced.
I realize I in fact still do not know what the "L" is supposed to mean, in my country.
This is a classic case of "open misanthropy".
People can love the Japanese for their unique characteristics and they can love the Japanese for the things they appropriated from other cultures. Just like the British.
Fact is though, in many ways, Japanese culture is a lot more caring, considerate and kind than the British.
>I doubt that purely wordless, symbolic system was truly the ultimate pinnacle of operational clarity.
Agreed, but only because Brits aren't really good at designing things for longevity, whereas the Japanese are great at it.
This seems rather blatantly anti-british? Feels like you're taking your point too far the other way.
How exactly is Britain not a country good at designing things for longevity? It is probably amongst the countries in the world that goes to the most effort to protect its architectural history, and also has some world class modern design schools.
The government also has a unified design system that makes using government digital services really easy.
why is critiquing Japanese design "open misanthropy" but you're more than happy to critique British design?
I would agree, having visited GB a few times in the past, one thing that is apparent is how solid things are built. Mailboxes, yellow cabs, medieval cathedrals.
Its only necessary to point out that the British are the worlds' masters at cultural appropriation and, as well, cultural degradation ... Curry, Reggae, Tea ... Near endless supply of degraded colonies, reaped economies, ruined cultures deemed inferior by the British ruling class .. and this "its not cool, its just Japanese" refrain sure does align with that imperialist view ...
I'm not sure any of those things (curry, reggae, tea) are examples by themselves of cultural appropriation. The first two are artefacts of groups who came to Britain and became part of it - British Indians and British Caribbeans are celebrated as part of Britain today.
As for the British imperialism - I completely agree that the British empire was a disgusting imperialist and racist project that destroyed economies and cultures.
Not to 'whatabout' but it's worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, that the Japanese Empire was at one point a disgusting imperialist and racist project as well, that similarly destroyed economies and cultures.
I think the Japenese designs are interesting, I am not the original thread commenter. I do however agree that there is a lot of 'Orientalism' that still goes on in the modern day, which is itself a form of xenophobia (it is highlighting Japanese culture as something exotic, and others Japanese people, who are just people same as me and you).
I'm not sure why a discussion of Japanese design required you to attack modern British design practices, and conflating criticisms of Orientalism with being imperialist seems a stretch.
The common theme for the discussed symbols is consideration for others.
In New Zealand we require a yellow [L] sign on cars with learner drivers (with learners drivers licenses). However I get the impression that other drivers are less considerate around a car displaying the [L] sign.
I suspect New Zealanders are generally far less considerate than Japanese. Politeness avoids a trillion sharp edges.
We also seem to be copying some of the US predilection of arsehole Ute (pickup) drivers.
> However I get the impression that other drivers are less considerate around a car displaying the [L] sign.
On a related theme - I have found when driving in the North Eastern US, when people put on their turn signal, other drivers will often speed up and close the gap rather than giving them space to merge.
As a northeasterner, I can explain:
In some other places, a turn signal before a lane change is an ask, to which others respond by creating more of a gap than there originally was. Here, it's not an ask but a statement that you've got enough of a gap already so you're going for it. As such, others don't find a need to react at all, which could mean the gap continues shrinking if it was already shrinking prior.
The signaler needs to have anticipated it and not signaled until this problem doesn't exist, in fact it's scary when someone signals despite this problem because the other driver is led to believe they're unseen. When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap, continuing to do so is a more fuel-efficient way out of the blind spot than using the brake pedal.
Aside: turn signals that automatically flash 3 times with no reasonable way to cancel the remaining flashes when you discover a need to abort a lane change exacerbates the aforementioned scare, so I recommend disabling it.
Where I am, I was taught that activating the turn signals means "I have made a decision to change lanes", so the appropriate reaction from surrounding traffic is to either safely accommodate that choice, or indicate using the horn and/or lights that the decision is unsafe and must be cancelled.
I'm in Scandinavia, and it feels like surrounding regions have similar conventions.
That's the case in Europe in general, yes.
I’m sorry but that is an insane interpretation of turn signals. If you only turn them on once you’re about to execute the maneuver, they’re useless. The whole point of them is to warn other drivers you intend to do something so they can anticipate your movement and allow you to do it safely.
How are turn signals explained in the driver handbook (or equivalent rulebook) in northeastern US? As far as I know they clearly state that turn signals are about intent, so they should be turned on the moment you decide you need to turn or switch lanes.
> The signaler needs to have anticipated it and not signaled until this problem doesn't exist
How do you handle an upcoming left turn (assuming right hand driving) during heavy traffic?
It's not the responsibility of the car changing lanes to optimize the fuel economy of the cars behind, but it is the responsibility of the cars behind to not needlessly impede other drivers from getting where they need to go.
> When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap
Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you? I don't see any reason you'd do this unless you have another free lane to the left and are planning to pass. If you don't then you're just reducing your margins to the next car for no reward, as you'd have to slow down anyway once the gap is "closed".
> How do you handle an upcoming left turn (assuming right hand driving) during heavy traffic?
If I am in the middle lane (lane 2), and I realize I need to get into the leftmost lane (lane 1) to make a turn, but lane 1 is too full for me to simply move into it without affecting others, then I would have no choice but to cut someone off. I would minimize the effect in two ways: by trying to cut off whoever has left the largest gap in front of them (hunting for a gap that might not be the largest now, but will be the largest when I actually use it), and by assuming as much of the rear-end-collision risk as possible until the lane change is complete. Only once my position is optimized to begin the lane change would I signal, because signaling from a suboptimal position could scare people (or give them an opportunity to fight my ability to change lanes). If I can remain in the optimal position for a couple of blinks without any downside, I absolutely will, but in the very heavy traffic we're discussing, typically the tires hit the lane line between first and second blink -- very much not an "ask."
> Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you?
No, I was referring to the gap between the car signaling for a lane change and the car that ends up preventing the lane change, which are in two different lanes. Suppose I'm in lane 2, and a car is in lane 1 a few car-lengths ahead of me. Suppose the car in lane 1 is going slower because they just merged from a left-side entrance ramp. Due to our speed difference, after a moment they're now only 2 car-length ahead of me. Their right turn signal comes on. Now they're 1 car-length ahead of me but they haven't yet changed lanes. Now they're 0 car-lengths ahead of me (i.e., the gap is closed) and cannot change lanes. I did not "let them in" upon seeing their signal, because that would ruin my momentum.
> Suppose the car in lane 1 is going slower because they just merged from a left-side entrance ramp.
Just to clarify, my original post was more about merging from a faster lane of travel into a slower lane, or where both lanes are traveling at about the same speed.
When merging into a faster lane I agree the slower moving car should wait for a suitable opening before signaling and merging. And there are cases where it is safer to pass a car with its blinker on than to slam on the brakes.
But also in general it's unsafe to be traveling at a large speed differential to the lane next to you. And a lot of times even though people probably could ease up a bit to make space for another car, and it would be safer to do so, they don't.
The slower car should signal the moment they decide they need to merge into the lane, then wait for an appropriate gap.
The Massachusetts handbook [1] says:
> Use your rearview mirror, check your blind spots, and use your directional signals when changing lanes. Remember these three steps: (1) look, (2) signal, (3) move
To me this means you don't signal until it's actually safe to merge. E.g. if a car is passing me at high speed, I wouldn't turn on my signal until after they had passed. If I did it before they pass, they might think my intent is to merge in front of them, and slam on their brakes, move into a different lane, etc.
In Japan [2] the process is 1) check rearview and side mirrors, 2) turn on blinker at least 3 seconds before turn, 3) while the blinker is on, do a shoulder check for blind spots 4) merge, 5) flash your hazards 2-3 times to thank the driver who let you merge.
So you're also checking for safety before signaling. Step 5 isn't actually required by the way but it's quite common and a nice touch I think.
These are of course cases where you have the option of moving into a faster lane at your discretion. If your lane is coming to an end, you should probably signal well before the end of the lane (although I would still wait to get up to speed before signaling).
[1] https://www.mass.gov/doc/english-drivers-manual/download Page 95
[2] https://groups.oist.jp/ja/resource-center/things-remember-pr...
> I wouldn't turn on my signal until after they had passed. If I did it before they pass, they might think my intent is to merge in front of them, and slam on their brakes
This is precisely the point I'm making, which I perceive as more typical in the northeastern US than other parts of the US where people use the turn signal to beg for an opportunity to be created that doesn't yet exist (at which point declining to create is seen as actively fighting when it's really not).
Flashing your hazards to thank somebody isn't something I've even seen officially recommended and I see it more as a nuisance in most cases. The communication can't really be unambiguously understood as a "thanks", especially not if you do it for more than one flash.
It's something I personally do about once in a hundred passes if I think somebody really went out of their way to accommodate me, but even then I realize it's detracting from road safety in several ways, such as reaching over to the often awkwardly placed button, and perhaps confusing other drivers.
But I suppose it's a cultural thing, I've heard that in India it's common to use the horn to notify other drivers of your presence even though there's no imminent danger. Which is something that in most other countries would be seen as obnoxious.
>If I am in the middle lane (lane 2), and I realize I need to get into the leftmost lane (lane 1) to make a turn, but lane 1 is too full for me to simply move into it without affecting others, then I would have no choice but to cut someone off.
...you could just miss your turn, instead of cutting someone off?
I'm not exactly well-versed in the term "cutting someone off", perhaps it implies dangerously moving in front of somebody, in which case, obviously it shouldn't be done. But often people are unwilling to slow down to open a gap to let somebody "cut them off", even when it's perfectly safe to do so (low speeds and low speed differences).
By slowing down to let somebody in front of you, you prevent them from missing their turn at practically no cost to yourself. But there's this psychological need to be "first" among many drivers, that also causes other irrational behaviors.
It's not uncommon to see drivers keep way too little distance to the cars in front and pass quite aggressively, only for us to end up next to each other at the next red light anyway. All their wasted gas and lowered safety margins got them was arriving at the light 2 seconds earlier.
I'll admit, many maneuvers can be described as cutting someone off. One so crazy that it would likely cause a collision should never be performed, but I was talking about the low-speed "bumper to bumper traffic" scenario common in lanes dedicated to making a left turn: the reason the gaps are too small for a non-cutoff lane change is a direct consequence of the low speeds involved, say 0-10mph. Imagine cars are nearly stopped for a red light, with gaps varying between 0.2 car length and 0.5 car length (this is much tighter than other parts of the US where gaps while stopped for a red light are typically 1-3 car lengths). I would line the nose of my car to the very front of the 0.5 gap (taking the majority of the risk), signal, cross the lane line within a flash or two, forcing the gap to expand to just over the length of my car, all at just a few mph. This is the type of cutting off I was referring to. And the driver who was cut off has no opportunity to fight; they would if I signaled too early!
Also really strange to me to be prioritizing fuel economy over safety.
And anyway, it's more fuel efficient to leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you so that if they slow down, you can just take your foot off the accelerator to match speed rather than braking. And increase speed again slowly when they speed up (again leaving a healthy gap). For anyone driving a hybrid or EV especially much of those losses can be recovered with regenerative braking.
The other thing is that in places where people use turn signals properly, it's customary to signal a few seconds before you turn (where I live the law is to signal at least three seconds before changing lanes). That gives people plenty of time to ease off the accelerator and make space without needing to hit the brakes.
I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I think the more likely explanation is just that this anti-social behavior has been normalized in the North East. And drivers are either oblivious to others around them, or have adopted the outright aggressive attitude that yielding to other drivers makes you a sucker.
To their credit, traffic fatalities do tend to be lower in the North East than the rest of the country on both a per-capita and per-mile-driven basis [1]. But I suspect it has more to do with other factors like lower speed limits than merging behavior. And this is supported by the fact that Massachusetts (and the most of New England) has the highest per-capita accident rate in the country [2].
So not only are you adding to each other's stress levels. You're also driving up insurance prices and contributing to traffic jams with more accidents.
[1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
[2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-states-with-the-...
> Also really strange to me to be prioritizing fuel economy over safety.
If I see that someone is actually changing lanes (in terms of lateral position changing within their lane) then of course I would get out of their way, as it would be unsafe not to. But if they're postponing their lane change (despite their signal already being on) because I'm about to be in their way, that's the scenario I'm talking about when I say I'm going to continue on my way rather than lose momentum/fuel: they are waiting for me to not be in their way, they will continue waiting until I'm gone, and they should've waited until I'm gone before signaling (by "should" I simply mean if they want to assimilate into this driving style). The example scenario in my other recent comment will help illustrate this.
> leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you [...] leaving a healthy gap
I realize that my original comment wasn't clear on this, but the "gap" I'm talking about is between cars in different lanes (again, see the example scenario in my other comment). We can assume no lead car at all.
> I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I won't say it's the best, it's just what I've noticed. But it's not "their path" if they're just hoping to be let in without actually moving. When they start moving, it's a whole different story, and I would get out of there (ideally lane change, but brake if needed). I guess "stealing my attention" would've been a better way to say it than "scare."
I think if you're waiting for them to actually start to change langes before responding, then you're leaving too much up to chance. Because if you go to pass them they might start to merge when you no longer have any safe options available - either because they didn't see you, they misjudged, they're just an a-hole, etc. There are a lot of unpredictable drivers out there.
I think the safest thing - and the most polite - is when they first start to signal, make a determination if you are able to safely give them space by easing off the gas and maybe lightly tapping the brakes (of course you don't want to do any hard braking because that creates a risk of being rear-ended). And if the answer is yes, then let them merge. If you're traveling at a safe speed, leaving a safe distance to the car in front of you, and assuming they signal about the time the car in front of you passes them, this should be doable more often than not.
Indeed, the extremely minor inconvenience of creating a gap in that scenario is very common even in the northeast US. It's the other half of the spectrum, where it's a more severe inconvenience, that it's uncommon for a northeastern driver to accommodate, from which the perception arises that we fight people who are signaling. The signaler is the one picking the fight, and we simply don't entertain it.
I didn't find that to the case in Australia, as someone who had L's for far longer than is standard.
Mostly it meant that people gave you a wide berth, as learner drivers are unpredictable at times. So basically, what the sign intends.
It surprises me to hear that about NZ? As I think of NZ, as our friendlier cousin.
Just goes to show that our experiences are always hyperlocalised, and it's hard to actually make generalisations without actual data.
Where abouts where you driving in Australia?
I've had the same experiences as the parent commenter when learning to drive in Sydney. In general drivers in the bigger cities seem to be very aggressive.
Sydney drivers are very aggressive, but IME they do cut learners some slack. The learners just don't realise how much more aggressive people normally are... The 80km/h limit doesn't help either, as it forces a bunch of overtaking conflicts on freeways.
> It surprises me to hear that about NZ? As I think of NZ, as our friendlier cousin.
Kiwi here. Our driving is, in general, absolutely atrocious.
I've driven in America, Australia, UK, Canada (also India, but let's exclude that for this purpose). Out of all these, NZ is the worst to drive in. Aggressive drivers (especially Ute/truck drivers). Drivers that shouldn't be on the road because they don't know how to drive (Toyota Aqua drivers!). People that drive totally oblivious to their surroundings. And then you have the selfish ones. They won't stay on the left-most lanes if not passing, they won't move to the left if another vehicle is behind them, and when on a single lane approaching a double lane section (overtaking lane), they will start to speed up so the cars behind them can't overtake. I think it comes down to the 'tall poppy syndrome' that Kiwis are known to have.
Never experienced this kind of driving anywhere else. Other places, the drivers would have the courtesy to move out of the way if other vehicles are behind them.
> Politeness avoids a trillion sharp edges.
i've never seen that before, and what a great phrase!
Also, i'm in the US and don't know why this exists, but recently see this all over.
Can't visit that site from NZ. I've mostly seen kits for lifting 4WDs in NZ.
And I think the arsehole ute/pickup drivers are more of a tradie demographic.
Lifted 4WDs here seen to most commonly be private older vehicles owned by a wider cross-section of society (lifted for image/status or offroad access), and perhaps are rarely work vehicles. Think lifted 1996 rough Land Cruiser, not a showoff expensive new Ford.
It’s funny, because I felt that drivers were the chillest in New Zealand compared to anywhere in Europe, North America or Australia. There are regional differences (for example somebody mentioned Sydney here, which is truly different than for example North from there like Brisbane, Cairns; or obviously different parts of Europe can be vastly different), but I experienced the calmest driving experience in my whole life in and around Auckland. I labeled exactly zero other people as idiots there, but my scale is probably different than locals’. I drove a lot in Eastern Europe and South Italy. Compared to those places, New Zealand is heaven regarding this aspect.
That's nuts. I have seen a car in my city with a sticker that says:
It makes me smile every time. I honestly had a hard time when I was first learning, and especially transitioning to driving in an urban environment. I would say those streets, intersections, etc. were poorly designed, but of course, none of it was designed, urban road designs simply "happen" and people need to just improvise their way through it.Also in the UK and Aus. It's bizarre that a sign saying "I'm learning, be kind" encourages some people to monster you, follow you swearing, generally hassle you.
(33 years ago, still in my memory)
It's as if they think it means HTFU and then go to hazing.
In Aus when you get on your P plates you instantly feel like a mad dog and aggressively overtake L platers
> HTFU
I'm guessing "Harden The Fuck Up"
Bullying a car displaying any of the symbols displayed in the article is a ticketable offense in Japan*
*I've never seen or heard of someone getting a ticket for merely inconsiderate driving, but it's there in the traffic law
I'm not sure what bullying a car entails, but does that mean you're allowed to bully cars without those symbols?
There has been an explosion of “student driver” stickers here in the SF Bay Area. It’s completely voluntary, and most the vehicles appear to be driven by people in their 30s.
My son waited later to get his learning permit. I’ve met folks living it cities who never got driving licenses because there was no need. Could indeed be new drivers in their 30s.
Near me, it appears to be a decal parents are adding for the benefit of their high schoolers becoming new drivers.
Sometimes referred to as the loser plate, at least when I was growing up.
The logo expressing "Limited Express" is very unspecific, imagine if buses with the Mercedes star cost extra and didn't stop at every stop.
Interesting that a lot of US road signs have words on them: https://ygraph.com/graphs/roadsigns-20120316T030941-ekrruua.... , or are obvious, whereas in Europe drivers need to learn what they mean: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh...
For example the yield triangle, no stopping and no parking are probably unfamiliar to US drivers.
Meanwhile all Alfa Romeo Quadrofoglio drivers might be mistaken for drivers with missing limbs in Japan.
It was very surprising for me when I visited the US to see just how much space was wasted writing everything out on every sign and sometimes in giant words on the road.
It did also make me a bit worried about the expected level of driver education...
>It did also make me a bit worried about the expected level of driver education...
Not just driver, but of the general population. A few decades ago, the general reading level was at the 6th grade (thanks to the policies of Ronald Regan) and republicans think that is too high and have been working intensely to lower it. Won't be surprised if it's dropped given the "golden" opportunity of covid. I know it's only been a few years (centuries for most Americans) since Betsy DeVos was secretary of education. Remember that era?
To me it's odd to imply people must be stupid because they're expected to read a few simple words such as "Left lane must turn left" rather than to memorize a bunch of symbols.
American signs very frequently combine both styles - for instance, you see the above words next to a sign with arrows for whatever lanes, wordlessly illustrating the turn types permitted.
If someone is a new driver, who hasn't seen the symbolic signs enough, the word signs are a good fallback. The goal is to maximize accessibility.
People have seen the symbols since childhood, and as far as I know in every European country it's necessary to pass the exam on knowing what they mean before starting practical driving lessons.
Driving in Europe would be completely impossible without them. I have no idea what the Greek word for "no parking or stopping between 09 and 15" is, or the Croatian word for "left".
I agree - to me, that is the main practical reason Europe is a special case well-suited to symbolic signs.
The US doesn't have nearly that issue, since we have tons of symbolic signs, and few languages, which share a ton of close cognates anyway. For instance, most Mexicans I've heard will use the verb "parquear" or "aparcar" to mean "to park" rather than "estacionar" - so as you might expect, they have zero trouble decoding a sign saying "NO PARKING 9AM - 6PM" which is one of the most complicated text-only signs you usually see.
And then there's this one which always manages to horrify me:
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh...
I didn't say they were stupid, I said I was concerned about their level of education
> If someone is a new driver, who hasn't seen the symbolic signs enough, the word signs are a good fallback. The goal is to maximize accessibility.
That's the thing I'm concerned about! In Europe you're not allowed onto the road unless you have already proven that you have memorised all the symbols and can identify them on demand. You don't need to maximise accessibility because the required level of education is higher.
The system of signs used is an independent question from the level of driver education (which probably is generally lower in the USA than in most European countries though), which also is another question from whether people "are stupid".
The obvious benefit of the European style is that you don't need to speak the language in order to understand the signs, something that is clearly less important given the relative homogeneity of language in the USA.
But at least to me, the European road signs are also more quick to read. For example, the "only right turns" and "speed limit 60" are exactly the same shape and color in the USA, while in Europe there is more of a logical system (which also means you don't "memorize a bunch of symbols", you learn the "language" of the signs), such as blue disc means "mandatory", red circle means "prohibited", red triangle means "warning", etc.
The European signs also fare better in snow, very heavy rain or if they're really dirty, since the shape (and maybe some colour) is still visible.
You have to pass a written test to get your drivers license, so yes, you are indeed expected to be able to read.
Both have pretty enjoyable design language. The US signs follow colors, red for prohibition, white for rules, yellow for hazards, green for directional and blue for service. For Europe or the Vienna convention that much of the world uses, in respective order it's red for prohibition, circles for rules, triangle for hazards.
And brown road signs for tourist attractions, recreational areas, and cultural or historical sites.
And blue for instruction, so a blue circle is something you must do.
The "Limited Express" logo existed only until the railway was privatized, if I read the article correctly. In any case I haven't noticed it, and you know when a train is a limited express - it's right there on the board announcing incoming trains (and if it's your train then you already have a limited express ticket and you know the exact time it arrives). And, finally, there's an audio announcement which says that it's a limited express. But I'll look for the logo the next time I'm at the station, it would be interesting if it's still there. I actually hope so.
When in doubt, I’ll take a somewhat mysterious pictogram over a written sign in a language I don’t understand.
The yield triangle is super common here (California and everywhere else I've been in the US). It's even on your image.
No parking is usually a red curb or striped out area, which is different but also nonverbal. The complication is that many places have a EULA on parking spots that reads something like "No parking, 9-5pm, except on Tuesdays and full moons, or in a yellow vehicle, or by written agreement with a minimum of two signatures not including Bob". Good luck putting that in an icon.
That "no stopping" sign is unfamiliar to me, I guess we write it out but it's a pretty rare thing here to not allow stopping.
Most of the rest is familiar and/or obvious except the ones that have German words on them. Many of the concepts in writing don't exist on the German signs, I don't know if you don't have these signs or just not listed on your chart. Some of the English ones are just tooltips; it's never ok to stop on a railroad track but someone thought a reminder would be nice.
> "No parking, 9-5pm, except on Tuesdays and full moons, or in a yellow vehicle, or by written agreement with a minimum of two signatures not including Bob". Good luck putting that in an icon.
I have also noticed that parking rules are usually much simpler in the EU than in the US, and maybe the format just makes it cumbersome enough to spell out abstruse rules that in the end, the rules just have to stay simple enough.
It's not totally true though because lately many cities in France have enacted complicated parking rules that are explained nowhere except on a buried page on their website that might or might not be up to date. But that's just because modern societies are straying further and further away from the rule of law with every passing day, and there is nothing that citizens can do about it.
> Interesting that a lot of US road signs have words on them... whereas in Europe drivers need to learn what they mean
I mean... Europe had to develop a system that works regardless of whether you speak the local language. The USA assumed every driver would speak English. I would tend to favor the European strategy, though given how we've held out on adopting the metric system I won't hold my breath.
I don't see anything particularly special about these symbols. Don't get me wrong, I like Japan but while these icons look nice, don't most symbols already speak without words?
I always find it interesting to learn about symbols or iconography that a culture takes for granted that would be unknown or even invisible to an outsider.
Japanese heraldry is particularly captivating because of its apparent influence on corporate logo design of the 1960s. Between mon and traditional Japanese architecture, it’s eye-opening to see parallels between post-war American modernism and millennia of Japanese design.
In the spirit of this article, Cabel Sasser [1] once jokingly referred to U+1F4DB as “tofu on fire,” but eventually learned it is universally understood by Japanese people as a child’s school name tag.
[1]: https://bsky.app/profile/cabel.panic.com/post/3lxusfd6f5k2c
For a non-Japanese example, it wasn’t until I visited Europe that the “fleeing man” universally used for exit signage over there would have meant anything to me. You can drop that icon into something and immediately convey danger, flight to safety, etc.
> Cabel Sasser [1] once jokingly referred to U+1F4DB as “tofu on fire”
I simply will not stand for this notjosh erasure!
(potentially the greatest contribution I'll ever make to human culture. not sure how I feel about that, now that I think about it)
My humble apologies.
You might find the history of "American Traditional" tattooing interesting, as well.
What should be viewed as more unique actually is how verbose North America is. Especially in the car part that I know of, watching car reviews online - road signs or even buttons in a vehicle that would be symbols in Europe or Asia are written out.
I remember being in some American cars and seeing quite a few buttons being labelled in plain English, while an equivalent European car would certainly have used various symbols on those buttons (think 'Fan' instead of a fan icon). I'd imagine in Europe this is done at least in large part to not have to translate all those buttons and swap them out for each market in Europe (or at least have untranslated buttons and such be reduced to a minimum). Meanwhile, an American car would have been made with an America First attitude, and adaptations pertinent to other markets wouldn't have been front of mind (it's not like this specific example would have been a problem in Canada for that matter). I haven't been in an American car in a while though, so I don't know if this trend still loves on. It's probably become irrelevant given the infotainment and such will have to be translated anyway.
Aren't we (as an HN hivemind) always complaining that UI is removing text labels and leaving us with symbols only?
We complain about bad symbols, or symbols introduced without any explanation or time to learn them.
The symbols on a European car (TBH I've never noticed the difference in a hired American car) don't have this problem. They refer to real things, like lights and fans.
Symbols are hard. They can be done well. I don't think many would mind changing a 'call' button with a '[telephone receiver icon]' button, but those kinds of examples are probably in the minority.
> telephone receiver icon
It’s weird because no one has a phone that looks that way now. Does the younger generation even know that it’s a phone? Same with a lot of software iconography.
I don't think it's much worse than having an icon of mobile phone from 90s with a grid of buttons and external antenna. Almost no one is using those either. And a featureless rectangle with rounded corners in the shape of modern smartphone doesn't make a good icon. The best you can do is rectangle with circle for pre iphone X style home button or more generic slots for speaker/microphone which still makes a bad icon and are going away.
Having an icon of smartphone in a smartphone for the call app wouldn't be very helpful. And considering modern usage a smartphone doesn't even a have a strong association with calling.
I mean, I knew how a rotary dial worked (from a UX perspective) just through watching films before I ever got to handle one (and I've never placed a real call with one), so I'd assume that gen Z and A can still recognise a ye olde phone, assuming its not one with some wild design that's on the edge of the (Graham) bell curve of what constitutes a normal 'phone' shape.
Even then, most call icons I've seen don't only have the receiver as part of the icon, but some waves to, to indicate sound (speaker/sound icons often do the same, unless intend to mean 'mute', but that's usually paired with a cross or something). Given that, you could probably get away with anything half-moon-ish shaped, so long as it also has those waves on the upper end of the icon, and it'd still be recognisable as a phone receiver and a 'call' icon (please don't do that though. Just make a normal icon).
They are interesting for a variety of reasons. One of which is, while some are similar in function to, say, the "handicapped tag" that gets you pick of the best parking spaces in the United States, they are mainly enforced through social convention rather than law. This gives the symbols greater reach than laws, encouraging helpful behavior that can't be effectively legislated. Because Japanese culture is based on social harmony and mutual respect for norms, they're actually effective.
Secondly, because they are enforced by social convention, they can be very abstract which helps to reduce stigma. The aforementioned handicapped sign is clearly an abstract silhouette of a person in a wheelchair, which is very, very on the nose compared to a butterfly, clover, or heart. Similarly, the bicolor chevron indicating "new driver" (which I first encountered as a roll-up item in the Katamari Damacy series) is a whole lot less obtrusive than the "dunce cap" worn by driver-education vehicles in the USA (typically, a large sign or signs reading "STUDENT DRIVER" or similar mounted on the roof of the car). American drivers would prickle at having to have something like the "dunce cap" on their vehicles for a year after getting their license, but if it were an obvious but unobtrusive and abstract symbol like the chevron, public support for requiring the symbol on the vehicles of even newly licensed drivers (probably a good idea) would increase.
There is a general culture that one sometimes sees which treats anything related to Japan as highly remarkable. Ancient Japanese swords can literally cut through diamond like butter by being folded over 1 000 times after all.
Due to a favorable exchange rate a lot of people are traveling to Japan these days, and encountering these unfamiliar symbols for the first time and perhaps wondered what they mean.
Yeah. The symbols "speak without words", but no one hears their meaning without learning it in advance. They're pretty and foreign, but not particularly communicative.
My reading of it is that it isn't the use of symbols that is notable, but rather here are a few handfuls of roles that symbolic decals and signs have been given in Japan, most of which we don't have in North America at least. A lot of them are quite smart. Sure, the special badge for the front of a police or fire vehicle is pretty redundant, but it would be nice if we had a universal understanding of a couple of these just as we understand what the blue handicap icon means. I would nominate the best as:
1. The cross + heart one for people with hidden disabilities. This is probably top of mind for me because I have a family member who could use some extra understanding due to a condition.
2. The new driver, elderly driver, and deaf driver. The first one is obviously so useful that we've just created dozens of one-off text decals (clearly inferior, as they have to be noticed, read, and interpreted, rather than just recognized). It should be handed to you along with your permit and made compulsory like Japan describes.
As for the elderly one, it would be useful to tip us off to give them more space, and also to inspire us to think of our grandmas when we see such a car making a mistake on the road, instead of defaulting to assuming the driver is a deliberately uncourteous prick as we sometimes do.
(As for the "if people are too old to drive correctly, we should take their licenses away" argument, let's assume it's been made, and that someone has pointed out the tradeoffs of that policy in the real world that we live in.)
Maybe whats special about them is that in spite of their lack of beauty they have nevertheless become widely adopted by a society very keyed toward symbolic representation, and in that context whether or not you find them beautiful is irrelevant to the broader discussion, which is that symbols are social and only perpetuate because the culture which originates them finds them aesthetically appealing, useful, and necessary to the function of that culture.
>Don't get me wrong, I like Japan but while these icons look nice, don't most symbols already speak without words?
Yes? No? Whats your point? This is an interesting article about some beautiful cultural symbols. What is so wrong with you that you feel you have to degrade it?
Very interesting but the comparisons are somewhat US-centric. For example, there is an equivalent to the heart and cross in some western countries which is the sunflower lanyard.
> For those who are hearing impaired, there’s the chōkaku shōgaisha hyōshiki, which is a butterfly-shaped mark in yellow and green.
They used a pictogram to convey a kanji pun (chō refers to butterfly (蝶) as well as part of the word chõkaku (聴覚), sense of hearing).
How dumb; at least the butterfly wings sort of look like ears a little bit.
P Plates, Japan
I'm a big user of the shoshinsha mark (beginner) emoji
Several years back I lived in Tokyo for a couple of years. I like learning the local language. I could mostly get by with the spoken Japanese (Nihongo). Tried to learn the script but failed miserably. It's a combination of Hirgana alphabets, Katakana alphabets and to top it all 10s of thousands of Chinese Kanji. Loved my stay, very polite people. I think their vocabulary doesn't have the word impolite (polite and less polite). I would say Japanese script is one of the hardest if not hardest.
The article is not about the Japanese language, and it's not about writing systems, Kanji or otherwise.
Sorry, I guess I missed the point. Looks like I got carried away by my experience.
I think the fact that these symbols are "not words" is not in itself super earth-shattering. What really matters is whether they have to be learned like words. You could learn the words "New Driver" as a single "symbol", or you could learn the beginner symbol. The advantage of a verbal label is you can understand it without learning it, if you know the system its embdded in (i.e., English); its disadvantage is it's a big more complex and harder to distinguish from other symbols in that system if you don't know the system. The advantage of the symbol is it's compact and can be learned without having to take on the full complexity of a linguistic writing system; the disadvantage is it has to be learned separately by everyone, even those who already know a much more powerful system (namely, writing).
There are limits to both. Obviously it wouldn't be effective to have a bumper sticker that says "This driver has been driving for less than a year, so please use caution around them"; if you lean too much on the power of writing, you make it too hard to quickly identify the meaning. On the other hand, it's not easy to come up with a wide variety of sui generis symbols and still have them be visually distinguishable at a glance, so there's also a limit to how far that approach can get you.
I do wonder whether there is some link between differential reliance on symbols of this sort and the use of alphabetic vs. nonalphabetic writing systems in different languages/cultures. Like, crudely speaking, is it the case that, because you already have to learn so many separate symbols to read Japanese, learning a few more for stuff like "elderly driver" isn't much of an extra load? Or is it the reverse, that because you have to learn so many symbols to read Japanese, they want to make these separate symbols for a small set of important meanings so people can learn them even if they don't know how to read? I'm not sure whether there's a real link here or not but it's interesting to think about.
The way "New Driver" hits brain is different than a symbol. Wordings develops much more rational impression of it.
Pretty neat
Slightly related cool one that my japanese family explained me is that 'w' was used for 'warau' (aka "lol") in online japanese speech.
And so for "laughing a lot" people would write 'wwwwwwww'.
But then 'wwwwwwwwww' looks not unlike grass.
So now to say they're laughing a lot, they're using the real kanji for grass.
We went from 'w', a romanji used as a shortcut for a japanese word, to a kanji because, visually, many 'wwwwwwww' looked somehow like grass.
It's fascinating how in Japan the approach feels more visual. I mean: we may be doing similar things with our "romanji" (roman characters, as japanese calls them) but it's less common.
Speech / ideas / words: it's really something else.
One thing I'd add: the "kuuki wo yomu" concept extends beyond symbols into everyday social cues too. A classic example is the "genkan" (entryway) — the slight step-up from outdoor to indoor floor level silently tells you where to remove your shoes, no sign needed. The whole house layout enforces the unspoken rule.
Train station melody chimes are another great example — they differ by station and line, so locals unconsciously recognize which station they're at by sound alone, without reading anything.
There are countless other forms of "reading the air" throughout Japanese daily life. I'd genuinely recommend visiting Japan once to experience it firsthand.
If you hear a Japanese person yell "K.Y.! K.Y.!" you'd better blush, and not because they're referring to a fun-times lubricant. It stands for "kūki yomenai", literally "cannot read the atmosphere". Kind of like "Hey, read the room, asshole!"
[flagged]
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
If "drivers of private vehicles in Japan", must understand these "four symbols" then these are not "Japanese symbols that speak without words".
I don’t understand your comment. Can you spell it out for me?
The article is decent, but the headline is saying something demonstrably false - evidenced by the article itself.
Not one of the symbols can possibly be understood as to its intended meaning without learning what the symbol represents - that is to say, simply by looking at any of them in no way whatsoever suggests, hints, or shows their meaning in the appropriate context.
I understood the article to mean, for example, that the help mark allows people on a train to signal "though I may not outwardly appear like I am disabled, I do have a need for priority seating". And thus people would (hopefully) offer up their seat without needing to be asked with words.
I don't think they meant that the symbols should be universally understood without need for explanation. That would be accomplished separately through some sort of public education campaign. In the case of the "help mark", they actually explain what it means in multiple languages in a big sign right above the priority seating [1].
[1] https://www.kotsu.metro.tokyo.jp/eng/guides/conduct/
The fact you’ve got to learn them doesn’t negate the statement that they communicate without words.
All language has to be learned
True, though I think the point they're aiming at is that symbols like [new driver mark] contrast with literal pictograms like [symbol of person in wheelchair]. You can infer/guess the meaning of [symbol of person in wheelchair] 'without words' in a way that you can't with [new driver mark], because [symbol of person in wheelchair] is communicating with a picture instead, while [new driver mark] appears to be purely convention. (At least, the article doesn't seem to suggest otherwise.)
japan glazing imho and i love kamon (family crests). you could have written this article about almost any country.
The kamon are very attractive compared to their Western counterparts, to my eye. Other than that it’s just a weird “wow Japan” article.