Polish ambassador points to Ireland's road signposting dyslexia

probe

The Polish Ambassador spoke (in the most diplomatic terms) about the screwed up nature of Irish road signposting on Morning Ireland and how it can cause confusion and in some cases traffic accidents.

There is a standard system of traffic signage used in the rest of Europe, and Asia, and Africa, and Latin America, etc governed by the Geneva Convention. Ireland has sort of copied it in parts, but uses it the wrong way around!

Example:

Red circle signs depict prohibited movements in the rest of the world. In Ireland they usually mean the opposite. E.g. a red circle around an arrow pointing right means you shouldn’t go right in the rest of the world. In Ireland it means you must go right! In the rest of the world a blue sign with a white arrow pointing to the right is used to indicate this.

While one occasionally finds these blue signs in Ireland in some places, very often they are mis-used. E.g. Cork City Council signposters don’t appreciate the difference between the white arrow being at 270 degrees (which says you must turn left) and the left arrow pointing at 225 degrees (which means you must drive on the left side of this object).

Is it any wonder that the road accident rate is so unnecessarily high when the “authorities” haven’t a clue about road signage, driver training and driver testing?

Is it not time Ireland developed a signage system that complied with the Geneva convention used in the rest of Europe and forced local authorities to use it on a consistent basis?

The existing system causes great confusion to tourists and gastarbeiters alike and the reverse must also be the case when Irish drivers have occasion to drive outside of the country.

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2136715.smil

probe

dRNk SAnTA

Is it not time that signage in Ireland was sorted out once and for all. Everything from street-name signage to road signage to event/tourist signage is a terrible mess here.

Its surely major challenge to try and fix but its not going to fix itself. I'm tired of hearing and reading about the complaints of tourists, it gives a terrible impression of our country. If every other country can do it why can't we; we no longer have the excuses we had in the past.

What can be done? the job would be enormous!

I'd love to see a thorough sweep through all the cities, towns and country side, fixing, removing and improving signage. At the same time i'd love to see an attempt to declutter our streetscapes of pointless signage. Using a definitive set of common signage throughout the country. I'd also love to see proper road-name signs on every corner. Am I being unrealisitic? other countries have them!

Conar

I don't think you are being unrealistic at all.
If we can't sort out these issues while our economy is in a boom then when will we ever be able to do it?

While they're at it they can look into the oddity that is back roads the width of a mars bar having speed limits of 80, while a lot of big uninterupted main roads have limits of 60.

Can we please also get rid of these painted roundabouts they have put in everywhere. I mean they have them in a lot of estates to now FFS. Since when was traffic that bad in estates.

And last but not least, why don't they stick a few ads on the tv explaining to people that there are a lot of junctions with sensors for the traffic lights and if they creep forward past the line the filter oftenmj won't come on!

(End of rant)

corktina

Conar wrote:

I don't think you are being unrealistic at all.

And last but not least, why don't they stick a few ads on the tv explaining to people that there are a lot of junctions with sensors for the traffic lights and if they creep forward past the line the filter oftenmj won't come on!

(End of rant)

and at the same time explain to Muppets that you DONT need to wait for the green arrow to turn IF the main light is green anyway....IUve seen that so many times here in Cork, but also I see it every time I am in Pearse St Dublin on the Helens Corner junction.....if there isnt a red light , you dont have to stop people.......(rant over also....)

Conar

Yep so annoying!

While we have them changing the road signs etc, we should change our traffic lights so that they go amber before green to let you know to get ready!

Every time I drive in NI it amazes me to see what a difference that can make to pull off times at lights!

parsi

probe wrote:

The Polish Ambassador spoke (in the most diplomatic terms) about the screwed up nature of Irish road signposting on Morning Ireland and how it can cause confusion and in some cases traffic accidents.


Is it any wonder that the road accident rate is so unnecessarily high when the “authorities” haven’t a clue about road signage, driver training and driver testing?


probe

Indeed. Considering the the most recent horrific crashes have not cited signage as contributory factors then this must be a wee bit of a red herring.

At the end of the day our speed-limit signs are denominated in km and so are the Polish Ambassadors "constituents" speedometers.

It does however highlight the fact that if you are in another country it pays to study the roadsigns and see what differences there are. I'm sure many people have been caught out by the directional signs in France which are placed right on the corners rather than a few feet before - it often causes people to take the wrong turn.

Hagar

parsi wrote:

I'm sure many people have been caught out by the directional signs in France which are placed right on the corners rather than a few feet before - it often causes people to take the wrong turn.

They are usually reminders.
You will have already passed at least one, usually two, early warning direction indicator signs.

parsi

Hagar wrote:

They are usually reminders.
You will have already passed at least one, usually two, early warning direction indicator signs.

Arrah you know the ones I mean .. everyone has got caught by them in French towns (haven't they?)

They are referenced here http://www.californiawineandfood.com/events/postcards-tour-2005-pt2.htm
(second section - line begins "potentially more problematic" )

murphaph

It as actually Ireland's eagerness to establish some sort of warning & regulatory signage system that saw the introduction of the yellow diamond "new world" and "backwards" regulatory signage in 1956. Europe was messing around and couldn't agree on how to implement the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic Protocol (A UN convention), so we forged ahead with a tried and trusted system (mostly) copied from the United States. In fact, it was so copied that the "school children crossing" sign had to be replaced a short while later as the children were facing the "wrong way" on the sign! (They drive on the other side of the road remember!)

Our system is highly logical in fact. Red circles without srikethroughs are compulsory "must do's", red circles with strikethroughs are compulsory "must not do's". It's far more logical than the system used across Europe and the British Worboys Report said as much when it was drawing up it's proposals for British signage and commented on the illogical system of red circles and red circles with strikethroughs (for example-the geneva protocol has pedestrians/cars/bicycles prohibited in a plain red circle, while a "no right turn" etc. prohibition has a strikethrough-this is totally illogical if you think about it!!). However, they felt at the time that as the rest of Europe was going down the nonsensical route that they would too, to maintain uniformity.

Having said all the above, the Geneva Protocols have established themselves now and I believe we should also switch to the standard. We can keep our diamond signs (they are far superior to little red bordered triangles in every respect!) but our regulatory signage should be converted.

This process has already begun of course, 1997 saw the introduction of Geneva Protocol in the Traffic Signs (ammendment) Act of that year. Unfortunately that act allowed the older 'irish' versions of the "keep left" and "turn left" etc. to remain legal. This is clearly a mistake and could cause cnfusion. The original irish "keep left" sign was dreadfully close to a "straight ahead only" sign! It's just a slightly bent arrow and is one of the most confusing signs for foreigners.

Anyway, our system on the whole was better than what the rest of Europe opted for in so far as it was highly logical with few anomalies compared to the Geneva Protocol but I still think we should convert all regulatory sgnage over. The warning diamonds are fine thoughand should be left alone!

Pfungstadter

I knew I was right in some other thread a while ago

I said that our cycle lanes are maked wrong in allot of places, a bike on a red circle.

I said that this means cycles prohibited, but some one nocked me down for saying this. and said that it was allowed under some regulation.

I mean as I said there I 've driven in many countries, about 7 or 8, and travlled though many many more as a passenger and our signs are just wrong.

Red circle, = prohibition
Blue solid circle = compulsory
Yellow Chevron = Warning

but here it's actually

red circle = prohibition and compulsory and what ever the council want it to say
Blue solid circle = well these look nice and aren't the bikes so cute on them
Yellow chevron = mostly used except by CIÉ for marking level crossings they prefer the red triangle, but sometimes use the chevron.

The idea of the geneva convention on signs was to make it simple for cross border traffic. You shouldn't have to learn a "complete" new set of rules every time you cross a border.

Alun

And don't forget the unique Irish "No Entry" sign. Possibly a better design than the usual one in the rest of Europe, depending on your point of view, but non-standard nonetheless. Plus the lines they draw across the road at the entrance to a one-way street that makes you think you have to Yield / Give Way when you're coming out of them.

GeorgeBailey

Pfungstadter wrote:

I said that our cycle lanes are maked wrong in allot of places, a bike on a red circle.
I said that this means cycles prohibited, but some one nocked me down for saying this.

Did you get his licence plate number?

murphaph

Pfungstadter wrote:

I knew I was right in some other thread a while ago

I said that our cycle lanes are maked wrong in allot of places, a bike on a red circle.

I said that this means cycles prohibited, but some one nocked me down for saying this. and said that it was allowed under some regulation.

They were right. You were wrong I'm afraid. Again, an older act (Traffic signs (amendment) Act, 1992) allowed this sign;


This sign again is highly logical in the context of our original system-a bike in a red circle is a bike track (not a must do per-se, but a can do), a bike in a red circle with a strikethrough means the end of said cycle track and bikes prohibited any further along the footpath. Simple. The Geneva Protocol is reversed, so a bike in a red circle means they are prohibited.

I have no problem with the anomalies in the Geneva Protocol as they are universally understood at this stage and we should try to emulate them fully rather than persever with a logical but oddball system, but the above sign still has legal meaning and you can find an example (the only one I know of!) right outside the Four Courts on the quays.

Yeah Alun, our "No Entry" sign is about as logical as it gets and fits in perfectly with the "no left/right turn" ones, but again the Geneva Convention Protocols are anomalous with a completely different "barrier" type sign for "no entry" (however, it's such an important sign that I think the added emphasis of the horizontal barrier design is far superior to our logical one.

Archeron

there is a roadsign on the N3 in Meath pointing to a town called Kilbride.
Some prankster was very creative and changed the lettering around so that the sign now says:
"I'll ride Kim. mmmm, 69's"
I thought that was funny when I seen it first, but thats almost a year ago now, and its still the same. I think that says a lot for the people who are supposed to maintain roadsigns.

just thought I'd throw that in.

smashey

I think the Polish Ambassador and a lot of people here are missing a couple of very important points. If somebody drives while under the influence or at extreme speed, then it doesn't matter what signage is on the roads. They are still going to end up either seriously injured or dead. From the reports I have seen, a lot of the immigrants who have died on our roads have either been speeding or driving under the influence.

murphaph

smashey wrote:

I think the Polish Ambassador and a lot of people here are missing a couple of very important points. If somebody drives while under the influence or at extreme speed, then it doesn't matter what signage is on the roads. They are still going to end up either seriously injured or dead. From the reports I have seen, a lot of the immigrants who have died on our roads have either been speeding or driving under the influence.

I think everyone here's mature enough to recognise that innapropriate speed/drink driving are major factors in RTAs. We can still discuss the sh!tty signage though

Pfungstadter

@ murphaph

that second sign say to me that bikes aren't allowed entry or beyond this point.

I know you know everthing about Irelands signs, but ours need to be changed they do not make sense. especially to those of us who learned to drive or have done most of our driving in other countries.

i think who ever the minister is should grab this issue by na liathróidí and fix it once and for all. A minister did intervene in Dublin some years ago when the corporation tried to introduce it's new signage.

Also murphaph,

you also said in another forum that the english language can be omitted when the name is almost the same in english and irish, eh no these towns are in irish only cos officially they are in irish only, duhhhhh!!! Port Laoise was changed from Maryborough after independence. So was Dún Laoghaire.
And An Droichead Nua is irish only too, but not sure about a name chage there.

smashey

I agree that there are elements of our road signage system that need to be looked at. However, I think the Ambassador was trying to deflect from the real issue regarding Polish migrants to Ireland and that is that they aren't too bothered about our drink driving laws.

Bogger77

probe wrote:

The Polish Ambassador spoke (in the most diplomatic terms) about the screwed up nature of Irish road signposting on Morning Ireland and how it can cause confusion and in some cases traffic accidents.

Ah yes, our road signage is leading to Eastern Euro drivers driving drunk, on wrong side of the road, speeding, no seat belts, non valid insurance, and dangerously.

our road signage has a unique heritage, we've taken some from the US, some from Australia and some from Europe. While we have a lot to do in terms of maintaining the signage, restoring it after crashes etc, all of the signage is in the Rules of the Road, which all drivers should read, including non nationals.

Would you head of to Spain for a holiday with the car without looking up the road signs, speed limits (the -10 in rain), checking your insurance validity etc?

NavanJunction1

Pfungstadter wrote:

Also murphaph,

you also said in another forum that the english language can be omitted when the name is almost the same in english and irish, eh no these towns are in irish only cos officially they are in irish only, duhhhhh!!! Port Laoise was changed from Maryborough after independence. So was Dún Laoghaire.
And An Droichead Nua is irish only too, but not sure about a name chage there.

What's with the 'duhhhhh'?

ferdi

i like our road signs, if he dosnt like it, let him **** off back to poland.

murphaph

Pfungstadter wrote:

@ murphaph

that second sign say to me that bikes aren't allowed entry or beyond this point.

I know you know everthing about Irelands signs, but ours need to be changed they do not make sense. especially to those of us who learned to drive or have done most of our driving in other countries.

I did say at the start of this thread that our signage which does not comply with Geneva Protocols should be changed, even though it is actually superior to those protocols in many respects as it contains fewer illogical anomalies. Just for standardisation's sake mind, the EU and all that.

Pfungstadter wrote:

Also murphaph,

you also said in another forum that the english language can be omitted when the name is almost the same in english and irish, eh no these towns are in irish only cos officially they are in irish only, duhhhhh!!! Port Laoise was changed from Maryborough after independence. So was Dún Laoghaire.
And An Droichead Nua is irish only too, but not sure about a name chage there.

Not sure what you're actually talking about here but taking Portlaoise/Portlaois as an example. The name is so close that it is permitted to omit the ENGLISH name only. It is not legal to omit the IRISH name however. This is just the law, like it or not. I favour mono-lingual (ENGLISH) signage outside the Gaeltacht like non-Scots Gallic speaking parts of Scotland. It drastically reduces signage clutter and all irish speakers can understand english language placenames perfectly. However, the current law is the law.

NavanJunction1

murphaph wrote:

I favour mono-lingual (ENGLISH) signage outside the Gaeltacht like non-Scots Gallic speaking parts of Scotland.

Yes but try finding a Gallic speaker is Scotland, or someone who can tell you what a place name is in Gallic, or what it means.

Personally, I think this island would be a poorer place without the history the original forms of the names.

Maybe I'm alone in this but I like reading the names in Gaelic - they make you think. For example a meaningless name in English has a meaning in Gaelic. Who Aodh was (and what he did, where the meadow was and what happened to him) in the name Clonee.

Mind you if I did know who he was he probably mightn't that interesting at all

murphaph

Bogger77 wrote:

Ah yes, our road signage is leading to Eastern Euro drivers driving drunk, on wrong side of the road, speeding, no seat belts, non valid insurance, and dangerously.

What's with this? The polish ambassador never caimed all the accidents were due to sh!t signage. I'm extremely happy that somebody in the public eye is trying to shame our useless govt./LA's/NRA into doing this properly. It really lets us down as a nation when something as smple as proper warning/regulatory/direction signage is constantly ballsed up/neglected. We have the money. We have the ability. We are just not showing an interest.

Bogger77 wrote:

our road signage has a unique heritage, we've taken some from the US, some from Australia and some from Europe. While we have a lot to do in terms of maintaining the signage, restoring it after crashes etc, all of the signage is in the Rules of the Road, which all drivers should read, including non nationals.

I have no problem with holding onto yellow diamonds (much better than the euro triangles) but when we legislate to allow euro style signage the equivalent irish style should be outlawed. Currently this;


and this;



......have the same legal meaning and this could clearly be confusing to foreigners. Fair enough I say-there should be ONE sign for each prohibition!!

Likewise, this;



......and this;



......also have the same legal meaning. That last one is one of the most mistaken signs for euro visitors who think it looks like this;



......and when the sign twists at all, who could blame them!

Remembering that everywhere else in Europe that you encounter anything in a red circle, it's prohibited. So people encountering that bendy keep left sign at a roundabout might reasonably assume it means no entry. It's the Europe we live in folks. The regulatory signage needs to be fully converted to euro standards. We can keep our diamonds, they're fine.

murphaph

NavanJunction1 wrote:

Maybe I'm alone in this but I like reading the names in Gaelic - they make you think. For example a meaningless name in English has a meaning in Gaelic. Who Aodh was (and what he did, where the meadow was and what happened to him) in the name Clonee.

I'd favour keeping the town placename in both languages as you enter it, just eliminating bi-lingual direction signs which oftentimes you only get the briefest glimpse at. These should be as clutter free as possible. I live in Cluain Saileach, so am not so enamoured with the name as the good people of Cluain Aodha!

nordydan

NavanJunction1 wrote:

Yes but try finding a Gallic speaker is Scotland, or someone who can tell you what a place name is in Gallic, or what it means.

Personally, I think this island would be a poorer place without the history the original forms of the names.

Maybe I'm alone in this but I like reading the names in Gaelic - they make you think. For example a meaningless name in English has a meaning in Gaelic. Who Aodh was (and what he did, where the meadow was and what happened to him) in the name Clonee.

Mind you if I did know who he was he probably mightn't that interesting at all

NJ1 I also like the bilingual signs. Its says it all about some people who would throw their heritage down the drain to save some ink. Absolutely disgraceful!!:mad: :mad:

murphaph

nordydan wrote:

NJ1 I also like the bilingual signs. Its says it all about some people who would throw their heritage down the drain to save some ink. Absolutely disgraceful!!:mad: :mad:

Did I mention cost savings? Nope. I gave the solid reason of sign clarity for wishing to eliminate irish from signage which may need to be read at speed. Everytime you engineer out a distraction you make the roads that bit safer. Our road signs can be very difficult to read as the english placenames (what 99% or road users are reading) are in transport medium roman script (all capitals). Capital letters are acknowledged to be more difficult to read than mixed case placenames. You give a 'heritage' reason for wishing to keep irish on signs required to be read at 120km/h. Not a good enough reason at all at all.

icdg

Pfungstadter wrote:

Also murphaph,

you also said in another forum that the english language can be omitted when the name is almost the same in english and irish, eh no these towns are in irish only cos officially they are in irish only, duhhhhh!!! Port Laoise was changed from Maryborough after independence. So was Dún Laoghaire.
And An Droichead Nua is irish only too, but not sure about a name chage there.

For ages we had only Drochead Nua, Rath Luirc, Ceanneas, and Mhuine Beag on signage, no English versions. Since the 1990s, Newbridge, Charleville, and Kells have reappeared on signs though, although it seems to be pot luck whether the council signs Muinebeg or Beagnalstown as the English version of Mhuine Beag.

You get stupidity like Dun Laoghaire DUN LAOGHAIRE on signage in south Dublin though. I've also seen Port Laoise PORTLAOISE in cases.

MT

nordydan wrote:

NJ1 I also like the bilingual signs. Its says it all about some people who would throw their heritage down the drain to save some ink. Absolutely disgraceful!!

But most of the placenames in England are corruptions of older names from other languages or dialects. There are Celtic names, Norse names, Anglo Saxon names, Latin names and so on yet there's been no clamour to reinstate the accurate names from these past languages on heritage grounds. They've obviously decided that having the like of Londinium LONDON on road signs causes needless clutter.

Indeed, the same is most likely true for most other European countries where placenames are corruptions of much older names in earlier versions of the language, other dialects or other languages altogether. If you're ever in the Algarve don't expect to see signs for Faro with the pre-Arabic name Santa Maria in Portugese placed above.

Most countries seem to have put safety and good directions higher in their list of priorities for road signs than heritage preservation. Indeed, I've often wondered if the reason signage has never been taken that seriously down south is due to a view in the early years that its main function was to mark out the country's independence from the UK and act as a form of cultural nationalism. Now, I've no problem with such concepts just that the primary function of road signs seems to have been disgarded as a serious concern at some point.

Calina

icdg wrote:

For ages we had only Drochead Nua, Rath Luirc, Ceanneas, and Mhuine Beag on signage, no English versions. Since the 1990s, Newbridge, Charleville, and Kells have reappeared on signs though, although it seems to be pot luck whether the council signs Muinebeg or Beagnalstown as the English version of Mhuine Beag.

You get stupidity like Dun Laoghaire DUN LAOGHAIRE on signage in south Dublin though. I've also seen Port Laoise PORTLAOISE in cases.

Point of information:

Rath Luirc was supposedly the English name, post Independence, of the town known to most people as Charleville, and An Ráth was the Irish version. An Ráth is still the Irish name and it is still on most of the signs around, including the signs as you come into the town. There was a vote on the subject some years ago.

Calina

MT wrote:

But most of the placenames in England are corruptions of older names from other languages or dialects. There are Celtic names, Norse names, Anglo Saxon names, Latin names and so on yet there's been no clamour to reinstate the accurate names from these past languages on heritage grounds. They've obviously decided that having the like of Londinium LONDON on road signs causes needless clutter.

Bad, bad example. Currently, the official language throughout the UK is English, with Welsh and Scots Gaelic having some official status in Wales and Scotland. The signposts are in the local official languages, which, for England, do not unclude Anglo-Saxon as was, Latin, any variation of Brythonic Celtic or early Norse languages. No-one actually speaks Anglo-Saxon any more, and Latin is considered a dead language. The nearest you'll get to Celtic languages of England is Welsh, and it's semi-official in Wales where they have signposts in Welsh, but completely dead outside Wales where there it is not official and there are no signposts in the language.

In Ireland, however, both Irish and English are official. It's also still spoken by a number of people. As recently as yesterday I had a work related conversation through Irish and I work in IT.

MT wrote:

Indeed, the same is most likely true for most other European countries where placenames are corruptions of much older names in earlier versions of the language, other dialects or other languages altogether. If you're ever in the Algarve don't expect to see signs for Faro with the pre-Arabic name Santa Maria in Portugese placed above.

On the other hand, everyone calls Cobh Cobh, and Dunlaoighaire Dunlaoighaire and not Queenstown and Kingstown. Care to explain why?

MT wrote:

Most countries seem to have put safety and good directions higher in their list of priorities for road signs than heritage preservation. Indeed, I've often wondered if the reason signage has never been taken that seriously down south is due to a view in the early years that its main function was to mark out the country's independence from the UK and act as a form of cultural nationalism. Now, I've no problem with such concepts just that the primary function of road signs seems to have been disgarded as a serious concern at some point.

Signposts in Wales are in both Welsh and English. Signposts in many parts of Belgium are in two different languages. In other words, we are not unique in this respect.

Most of the safety related signposting is in no language at all with the exception of STOP which, despite all, is the same in just about every language and Yield Right of Way.

MT

On the whole I much prefer most of the regulatory signs used in the Republic, especially over the incomprehensible nonsense that prevails across Europe and the UK. The use of red strike throughs so signify a prohibition is much clearer and more logical than the inconsistent approach up here. However, the introduction of the blue obligatory circles does provide for a greater differentiation with prohibitory versions and should become the norm everywhere across Ireland.

Again I find the yellow diamond warning signs much sharper on the eye than the European equivalent in use in the North. Though this too could be tweaked with the improvement of various symbols, the introduction of some used in Europe but not down there and the standardisation of others. At the moment there seem to be at least two lane narrows symbols on the go.

Having said all this, the system in use is not bad by any measure, where things really go pear shaped is in the installation and maintenance spheres. The standards there are often woeful. Where do you begin - signs not erected at all, a poor choice of materials, signs mounted incorrectly, inappropriate or inconsistent sign sizes for specific locations, badly damaged signs left unreplaced, twisted or leaning signs not straightened. Then there's the almost total absence of road markings at many junctions.

The list is endless and the effect is often a lack of vital information and an environmental eyesore - crumpled, damaged signs look as shoddy as litter strewn verges.

So while the system might need to be tweaked there'll be no major improvement until the work ethic of local authority road's departments and the NRA is given a thorough examination.

Pfungstadter

The reason we have so many english names close to Irish names in spelling is that when Ireland was mapped (indeed the first country to be fully mapped but wasn't technically acountry at the time) by the british army, they asked the locals for all the place names. And they spelled them as how they sounded in english or as how they could pornounce them. Other places such as Greystones were simple directly translanted into english. While others were just given other names.

So it's only pretty recent in history that place names are in their current form. maybe 150 or more years.

MT

I tend not to get involved in debates over the qualities of bilingual signage as they very often descend into political and ‘how Irish are you?’ type threads. There’s the inevitable Gaelgoiri and uber-nationalist paranoics that show up to smoke out those they perceive to have treacherous, West Brit or crypto unionist leanings.

So I think we should beware of taking this thread off topic.

Calina wrote:

Currently, the official language throughout the UK is English, with Welsh and Scots Gaelic having some official status in Wales and Scotland. The signposts are in the local official languages, which, for England, do not unclude Anglo-Saxon as was, Latin, any variation of Brythonic Celtic or early Norse languages.

Yes but Scots Gaelic is one of the recognised languages in the UK and yet isn’t required on signage outside of the areas it’s spoken in. Could the same not be applied to Irish Gaelic? Despite its official status does it have to be used on all signs everywhere? Indeed, there’s a precedent that currently exists in the Republic. English is an official language yet is no longer used on sign posts in Gaeltachts or where a Gaelic version of a place name is universally accepted such as Dun Laoghaire.

No-one actually speaks Anglo-Saxon any more, and Latin is considered a dead language.

The same could be said of Irish Gaelic in much of the Republic. On the other hand, the English language is spoken in Gaeltachts and yet will no longer be displayed on signage. Isn’t that somewhat inconsistent?

The nearest you'll get to Celtic languages of England is Welsh, and it's semi-official in Wales where they have signposts in Welsh, but completely dead outside Wales where there it is not official and there are no signposts in the language.

Could the same not be said of Irish outside of the Gaeltachts and in many areas of the Republic where the language might well be considered dead to all intents and purposes? So why not do as the British have done and restrict bilingual or even Gaelic only signage to those areas where it has a use as a living language?

In Ireland, however, both Irish and English are official. It's also still spoken by a number of people. As recently as yesterday I had a work related conversation through Irish and I work in IT.

But its official status hasn’t stopped the removal of the English language from signage in certain parts of Ireland. And equally I’ve had a travel related conversation in English in one of those areas and I dabble in IT.

On the other hand, everyone calls Cobh Cobh, and Dunlaoighaire Dunlaoighaire and not Queenstown and Kingstown.

Your point being? If a clear majority of people in the UK started to refer to London as Londinium I’m sure the signage would be altered and the current name replaced.

Signposts in Wales are in both Welsh and English. Signposts in many parts of Belgium are in two different languages. In other words, we are not unique in this respect.

Ah, that must settle it, who’s the least unique - countries with monolingual or bilingual signage?

Most of the safety related signposting is in no language at all with the exception of STOP which, despite all, is the same in just about every language and Yield Right of Way.

But don’t you think that the logic behind the use of one accepted language is that it cuts down on confusion? Couldn’t the same reasoning be applied to direction signage – as has recently become the case in the Gaeltachts?


Don’t get me wrong, Calina, I’m not some sort of anti-Gaelic fanatic. I appreciate the language and find it interesting, I just choose to descent from the orthodox view that it or bilingual road signs are necessary.:)

murphaph

Calina, you mentioned Belgium which is an excelent comparison (as is say, Switzerland) as parts of the country are predominantly Flemish with the south predominantly Frrench speaking, so signs are particular to their local language with some bilingual signage in Brussels. Compare this to Ireland......the majority English speaking areas have bilingual signs while the majority Irish speaking areas get mono-lingual signage, a disparity exists here!

My preference is for English only signage outside An Ghaeltacht and Irish only signage inside, with maps etc. corresponding exactly for our visitors to navigate.

This is fair and equitable and makes signage clear throughout the land. If bilingual signage must be employed then it should be nationwide, including the gaeltacht. Fair's fair and all that.

The only reason for insisting on Irish language placenames in say Finglas, is a vain attempt (which has failed for 80 years) to keep Irish alive. There are much better ways of language preservation (which I'm all for in fact) than cluttering signs needlessly.

NavanJunction1

MT wrote:

But most of the placenames in England are corruptions of older names from other languages or dialects. There are Celtic names, Norse names, Anglo Saxon names, Latin names and so on yet there's been no clamour to reinstate the accurate names from these past languages on heritage grounds. They've obviously decided that having the like of Londinium LONDON on road signs causes needless clutter.

But even with the advance of Franglais in France they keep Paris on signs in it's French form. Same in Spanish in Spain, etc.

What about the proposal recently to have signs in Polish on Irish roads?

I'm laughing here thinking about prospect of similar debate in Italy giving out that their roadsigns are in Italian, or if they were in Italian and in English that maybe they should only be in English. Make Napoli Naples & Milano Milan - sure it wouldn't cause confusion, and aren't those names only a corruption of a dead language - Latin.

It wouldn't happen. Somethimes I wonder if Irish just seems inconvienient or just plain embarrasing to some Irish people for some reason..

It's gas that after centuries of colonialisation that the language so many of us love to hate is not that of the ert-while conquerors, but our own.

Might be one of those victim complex things where the victim takes on the perpatrators mind-set, and starts to empathise with their perspective.

Pfungstadter

I like the bi lingual signs here,

Irish is ontop cos (as far as I can see, it's the first language, all gov documents have irish on top as far as I know) it's the First language in the Constitution, english is only the second. That's how english is omitted in gaelteacht area's.

Maybe they should have just used the irish names after independence on road signs and by now that how everyone would know everywhere.

I think it Irish should stay. Some people here would like to see our signs looking just like the uk, boring and ugly in my opinion.

And those who say foreigners can't understand irish, you don't see signs in english in non english speaking countries do you? If you don't know what An lar is you look it up if your a tourist. It's part of our language. If I'm in Norway or Greece I don't complain that I can't understand it.

Besides the point now
they made a balls of teaching irish after independence, they should have encourage the use of both together. But the puritans wouldn'thave it. By now we'd have a true dialect of english / irish.

I have travelled around the world and many many people think irish is just what irish people call english. Before I went away I couldn't care about Irish but after going around the world i have come back pround of our native language but ashamed of not using it.

Just another thing, when you say something is 'smashing' (as in great)
that comes from 'Is maith sin'

Sorry for going off the topic.

Calina

MT wrote:

I tend not to get involved in debates over the qualities of bilingual signage as they very often descend into political and ‘how Irish are you?’ type threads. There’s the inevitable Gaelgoiri and uber-nationalist paranoics that show up to smoke out those they perceive to have treacherous, West Brit or crypto unionist leanings.

So I think we should beware of taking this thread off topic.

While there is some merit to the point that this thread may drift off topic, it also has to be said, I didn't bring up the subject of languages+safety.

MT wrote:

Yes but Scots Gaelic is one of the recognised languages in the UK and yet isn’t required on signage outside of the areas it’s spoken in. Could the same not be applied to Irish Gaelic? Despite its official status does it have to be used on all signs everywhere? Indeed, there’s a precedent that currently exists in the Republic. English is an official language yet is no longer used on sign posts in Gaeltachts or where a Gaelic version of a place name is universally accepted such as Dun Laoghaire.

The question is the level of officiality. Scots Gaelic is not an official language for the entire UK. For the Republic of Ireland, Irish is an official language through the entire country.

MT wrote:

The same could be said of Irish Gaelic in much of the Republic. On the other hand, the English language is spoken in Gaeltachts and yet will no longer be displayed on signage. Isn’t that somewhat inconsistent?

Yes and I strongly disagree with it and have done so in other threads on exactly that subject. I am not Eamonn O'Cuiv and will not defend that.

MT wrote:

Could the same not be said of Irish outside of the Gaeltachts and in many areas of the Republic where the language might well be considered dead to all intents and purposes? So why not do as the British have done and restrict bilingual or even Gaelic only signage to those areas where it has a use as a living language?

Actually - the British have not restricted bilingual signage to those areas where it has a use as a living language. They were compelled to introduce them by campaigns on the part of local people.

MT wrote:

But its official status hasn’t stopped the removal of the English language from signage in certain parts of Ireland. And equally I’ve had a travel related conversation in English in one of those areas and I dabble in IT.

I disagree with that policy and will not defend it.

MT wrote:

Your point being? If a clear majority of people in the UK started to refer to London as Londinium I’m sure the signage would be altered and the current name replaced.

My point is that just because London people didn't harp back to Londinium, or indeed that Faro people didn't harp back to Santa Maria does not negate the fact that in certain parts of Ireland, people did prefer the older version.

MT wrote:

Ah, that must settle it, who’s the least unique - countries with monolingual or bilingual signage?

Actually I find that not actually funny, but patronising. The point - if you seem to miss it - is that other countries who have plenty of other linguistically related chips on their shoulders actually manage to implement a multilingual signposting system without, in fact, getting their knickers in a twist over it.

MT wrote:

But don’t you think that the logic behind the use of one accepted language is that it cuts down on confusion? Couldn’t the same reasoning be applied to direction signage – as has recently become the case in the Gaeltachts?

My personal view is that what has been done in the Gaeltacht is wrong and that bilingual signposting with the local spoken version in CAPITALS is fine.

MT wrote:

Don’t get me wrong, Calina, I’m not some sort of anti-Gaelic fanatic. I appreciate the language and find it interesting, I just choose to descent from the orthodox view that it or bilingual road signs are necessary.:)

What is actually most necessary from a safety point of view in this country is not monolingual or bilingual signposts - most of the safety related signalling in this country doesn't involve language - but for people to adhere to the signalling that is there. I note you didn't respond to that point.

Regarding the language debate - sorry - I'm not getting into it. My point is based on the fact that both Irish and English are official and we should work with that instead of arguing over whether Irish is dead, half dead, being murdered, or whether we're renouncing our culture by putting English to the fore. The question of the placename languages just diverts from the main subject of the debate. But then - as I say - I didn't bring it up. Most people who speak that non-English language call it Irish, not Irish Gaelic.

Hagar

MT wrote:

So why not do as the British have done and restrict bilingual or even Gaelic only signage to those areas where it has a use as a living language?

I think you mean the English there. The English rule Britain and they allow the Scots and Welsh to use their own language in their own countries. Jolly decent of them I'd say. :rolleyes:

MT

Pfungstadter wrote:

So it's only pretty recent in history that place names are in their current form. maybe 150 or more years.

At the risk of wandering away from the original topic, I’d have to say that many Anglicised versions are much older. The town near where I live has been Enniskillen since the Elizabethan invasions in the 16th century.

You can see an early variation of the name on this picture of the siege by English forces of the Maguire stronghold. I believe it was drawn/painted around the same period. Prior to this the island’s name was Inis Ceithleann which I believe means Kathleen’s Island.

NavanJunction1 wrote:

But even with the advance of Franglais in France they keep Paris on signs in it's French form. Same in Spanish in Spain, etc.

I’d say that a great deal more French people, indeed the vast majority, speak French as a first language. That might have much more to do with the use of French on road signs than national pride. However, as this seems to be bubbling towards a thread on nationalism shouldn’t the ancient enemy of the French, the English, have jettisoned the name Paris in favour of an Anglo-Saxon version. After all they’ve ended up using that foreigner William the Conquerer’s name for the city.

What about the proposal recently to have signs in Polish on Irish roads?

Well it’s the Poles first and ‘own’ language and there is a large community of them in Ireland, so using the logic employed elsewhere by those in favour of Gaelic on signs then surely Polish translations should be included as well. I can’t say I’m in favour, however, it would only lead to more confusing signs.

I'm laughing here thinking about prospect of similar debate in Italy giving out that their roadsigns are in Italian, or if they were in Italian and in English that maybe they should only be in English. Make Napoli Naples & Milano Milan - sure it wouldn't cause confusion, and aren't those names only a corruption of a dead language - Latin.

But you’re missing a vast difference between Italy and Ireland. There the vast majority of people speak Italian for day to day communication. Here it’s English. If Italians were to start using English instead, I’d be all for them Anglicising the place names to aid their pronunciation.

Somethimes I wonder if Irish just seems inconvienient or just plain embarrasing to some Irish people for some reason..

I don’t find Irish embarrassing in the slightest – who would I feel embarrassed in front of? On the contrary I find it fascinating but certainly not embarrassing – do you? I do feel that it is inconvenient when you’re attempting to interpret information on road signs and for designers attempting to provide a clear and easily understood layout. It also results in a excessive use of aluminium – an inconvenience for the environment.

It's gas that after centuries of colonialisation that the language so many of us love to hate is not that of the ert-while conquerors, but our own.

Oh dear, not one of those threads. How do you own a language? Do the English own English? Are the Americans, Canadians, Australian’s, Scots, the Welsh, the EU, international business conferences and ourselves committing theft by conversing in ‘their’ language?

Might be one of those victim complex things where the victim takes on the perpatrators mind-set, and starts to empathise with their perspective.

Oh dear. But surely that’s Stockholm syndrome and we surely can’t adopt it as the Swedes own it? There must be an Irish – preferably Gaelic – complex that we can use as an alternative.

Calina

MT wrote:

Well it’s the Poles first and ‘own’ language and there is a large community of them in Ireland, so using the logic employed elsewhere by those in favour of Gaelic on signs then surely Polish translations should be included as well. I can’t say I’m in favour, however, it would only lead to more confusing signs.

When Polish is an official language in this country then maybe yeah. Irish is, however official.

Metrobest

Look, let's get real about the language situation here. Every single holder of an "Eire" passport reads, reads their car handbook in english, listens to the traffic reports in english, calls the AA if they break down in english, calls 999 in english if in a roadside emergency.

We are living in pretend land if we think that putting confusing, italicised quasi-Gaelic names on our roadsigns do anything to help anyone get where they're going. Isn't that what signs are for - clear directions and road safety messages, not meaningless de Valera-style political statements about Ireland's cultural identity.

Travel anywhere in the world and Irish is no good for you - unless you want to have snide conversations about foreign nationals who you know won't understand it :rolleyes:

Putting a language on roadsigns that barely anyone speaks and that none of our hundred thousand odd migrants understand is so... well...Irish

MT

Calina wrote:

The question is the level of officiality. Scots Gaelic is not an official language for the entire UK. For the Republic of Ireland, Irish is an official language through the entire country.

But does official status have to mean its use on road signs? It’s not used on all Stop signs. Did the recent new requirements for the publication of government documents in Irish Gaelic make the language any more official? I’d say that’s not the case and neither was the language any less official prior to dual publication. English is an official language throughout the entire country and yet this isn’t reflected by road signage.

Actually - the British have not restricted bilingual signage to those areas where it has a use as a living language. They were compelled to introduce them by campaigns on the part of local people.

But surely they have – regardless of why they introduced the language in certain areas. As far as I’m aware Birmingham City council can’t erect bilingual road signs with Welsh on them. I never commented on the reasoning behind the use of bilingual signage just its extent.

My point is that just because London people didn't harp back to Londinium, or indeed that Faro people didn't harp back to Santa Maria does not negate the fact that in certain parts of Ireland, people did prefer the older version.

It certainly doesn’t. But it does establish a widespread precedent that Ireland ignores, undermining the idea that Ireland isn’t unique in its approach to place name signage.

Actually I find that not actually funny, but patronising. The point - if you seem to miss it - is that other countries who have plenty of other linguistically related chips on their shoulders actually manage to implement a multilingual signposting system without, in fact, getting their knickers in a twist over it.

I apologise for seeming to patronise you, it wasn’t intended. This isn’t a question of whether they can but whether they should. And as Murphaph has pointed out there are ways of implementing a multilingual sign posting system that are less knicker twisting. And wouldn’t it be better for the nation’s psyche to deal with the linguistic chip you acknowledge rather than facilitate it?

The Belgian approach is already carried out with Yield signs – Gaelic in the Gaeltachts and English elsewhere.

What is actually most necessary from a safety point of view in this country is not monolingual or bilingual signposts - most of the safety related signalling in this country doesn't involve language - but for people to adhere to the signalling that is there. I note you didn't respond to that point.

I’m sorry, I read some of this thread yesterday and then the rest today so I must have missed that point of yours. But I agree completely that a law abiding public would be the perfect solution the road safety situation. However, even those that play by the rules will still need to understand what those rules are – hence clear signage. And of course there’s another function of signage – getting people quickly and safely from A to B. Gaelic can be problematic there too.

Regarding the language debate - sorry - I'm not getting into it. My point is based on the fact that both Irish and English are official and we should work with that instead of arguing over whether Irish is dead, half dead, being murdered, or whether we're renouncing our culture by putting English to the fore. The question of the placename languages just diverts from the main subject of the debate. But then - as I say - I didn't bring it up.

While I might have problems with bilingual signage in a hypothetical discussion I’d agree that in reality given the system has been used for so long - and with bilingual signs up in most places - you should stick with what you’ve got. It would be much more productive to focus on the failings of the authorities in installing and maintaining signage devised under the current system rather than trying to overhaul the system at its core.

What do you think about the fonts currently used on bilingual signs? I find the Anglicised names in Transport Capitals and the Gaelic in mixed case italics provides for good differentiation but at the expense of being readible. Do you find the italicised Gaelic names difficult to read?

Most people who speak that non-English language call it Irish, not Irish Gaelic.

I’m a Northerner and as I’ve grown up in a divided environment I’m always very careful not to use such an exclusive definition of Irish as it can cause offence.

Hagar wrote:

The English rule Britain and they allow the Scots and Welsh to use their own language in their own countries. Jolly decent of them I'd say.

Come on now, you’re not one of those people that goes on about the UK being the last remnant of the empire? And that mocking impression of how the English speak was a bit rubbish – watch Little Britain it’s much more up-to-date. Have you ever been to England?

Hagar

MT wrote:

Come on now, you’re not one of those people that goes on about the UK being the last remnant of the empire? And that mocking impression of how the English speak was a bit rubbish – watch Little Britain it’s much more up-to-date. Have you ever been to England?

Isn't it the last remnant? The "Jolly" was just a bit of fun.
I don't watch Little Britain, I have my standards, they may be low, but they are still standards.
I have worked abroad in England, Scotland, Malta, Spain, Libya and France so I think you could say I'm not a xenophobe. I am however Irish and proud of my country and its language and heritage. I am against Polish road signs in Ireland. If they want to see the Polish language on roadsigns in know where they will find millions.

MT

Calina wrote:

When Polish is an official language in this country then maybe yeah. Irish is, however official.

But don't you think that would make signs even more cluttered and difficult to read let alone design? Surely such a trilingual approach would further diminish the functional objective of signage in favour cultural value thus confirming that for some road signs aren't about aiding road vehicles but are instead about cultural representation. In which case this whole debate would be pointless as it would seem that in Ireland linguistic pride shall always trump good design when it comes to road signs.

MT

Hagar wrote:

Isn't it the last remnant?

Not if you know anything about the political dispensation in the UK but that would be going way off topic. I’ll just presume you don’t.

I have worked abroad in England, Scotland, Malta, Spain, Libya and France so I think you could say I'm not a xenophobe. I am however Irish and proud of my country and its language and heritage.

That’s no guarantee of a lack of bigotry towards foreigners. Some people become more xenophobic and nationalistic while working abroad and longing for their homeland. And what has this debate got to do with whether you’re Irish or proud of your country, language and heritage. Are you suggesting that people who oppose your view on bilingual signs aren’t.

If they want to see the Polish language on roadsigns in know where they will find millions.

Isn’t that a bit anti-immigrant? It doesn’t do your claim to not being xenophobic much good. And is Calina any less patriotic than you for supporting the concept of trilingual road signs incorporating Polish?

Let’s not turn this into a ‘who’s the most Irish’ thread. :rolleyes:

Calina

MT wrote:

But does official status have to mean its use on road signs? It’s not used on all Stop signs. Did the recent new requirements for the publication of government documents in Irish Gaelic make the language any more official? I’d say that’s not the case and neither was the language any less official prior to dual publication. English is an official language throughout the entire country and yet this isn’t reflected by road signage.

In terms of the official status - I would have said yes, actually. And incidentally, it has always been the case that legislation has to be published in Irish. Way beyond recent changes there were already problems regarding a massive backlog in translation. And I have already stated that I disagree with monolingual Irish language signage.

MT wrote:

But surely they have – regardless of why they introduced the language in certain areas. As far as I’m aware Birmingham City council can’t erect bilingual road signs with Welsh on them. I never commented on the reasoning behind the use of bilingual signage just its extent.

You miss the point. The preferred option of UK authorities for a very long time was to restrict bilingual signage so that there was none at all. They have been forced to introduce some over the past I don't know, 20, 30 years depending on the area in question. In other words - the restrictions have been lessened.

MT wrote:

It certainly doesn’t. But it does establish a widespread precedent that Ireland ignores, undermining the idea that Ireland isn’t unique in its approach to place name signage.

What's your point? Either that we should be like other countries which manage bilingual signage, or we should pretend that Irish just doesn't exist and ignore it?

MT wrote:

I apologise for seeming to patronise you, it wasn’t intended. This isn’t a question of whether they can but whether they should. And as Murphaph has pointed out there are ways of implementing a multilingual sign posting system that are less knicker twisting. And wouldn’t it be better for the nation’s psyche to deal with the linguistic chip you acknowledge rather than facilitate it?

You seem to imply that dealing with the linguistic chip involves or includes getting rid of it on signposts. Perhaps it is not the Irish speaking minority who have the chip but the English speaking majority.

MT wrote:

I’m sorry, I read some of this thread yesterday and then the rest today so I must have missed that point of yours. But I agree completely that a law abiding public would be the perfect solution the road safety situation. However, even those that play by the rules will still need to understand what those rules are – hence clear signage. And of course there’s another function of signage – getting people quickly and safely from A to B. Gaelic can be problematic there too.

I only made that point today. But by the same token - most safety related signage is graphical, not language based. So the language is a moot point there.

MT wrote:

What do you think about the fonts currently used on bilingual signs? I find the Anglicised names in Transport Capitals and the Gaelic in mixed case italics provides for good differentiation but at the expense of being readible. Do you find the italicised Gaelic names difficult to read?

No, I don't find them difficult to read. I never have found them difficult to read.

MT wrote:

I’m a Northerner and as I’ve grown up in a divided environment I’m always very careful not to use such an exclusive definition of Irish as it can cause offence.

It says a lot to me that in fact, you consider Irish to be a more exclusive definition than Irish Gaelic.

mackerski

NavanJunction1 wrote:

Maybe I'm alone in this but I like reading the names in Gaelic - they make you think. For example a meaningless name in English has a meaning in Gaelic. Who Aodh was (and what he did, where the meadow was and what happened to him) in the name Clonee.

So go down the road to Blanchardstown. There was a bit of a dilemma when placenames went bilingual, since it didn't have an Irish name. The first attempt at finding one led to the adoption of "Baile Luindín", based on the memory of an old woman. Years later, they decided there was no basis for the name and that the woman probably meant "Baile Bhluindín" (Blundellstown, Co. Meath). Finding themselves thus without any Irish language name for the town, they simply made one up. Ever since, "Baile Bhlainséir" has been on the signs. No tradition? Invent one.

Presumably this kind of messing will somehow help restore the first official language to its rightful place.

Dermot

murphaph

MT wrote:

Let’s not turn this into a ‘who’s the most Irish’ thread. :rolleyes:

Unfortunately this was where this thread was heading from the off. I am glad to see Dublin Bus have ditched the bilingual (and at times shockingly confusing) destinations on some routes. The 39 seems to be all english now. Let 'em use irish in Gweedore or wherever, that's absolutely fine by me, but Dublin and 99% of Ireland is an english speaking country, despite what the census says. Cupla focail suddenly turns into fluency when people are asked every 10 years :rolleyes:

murphaph

Calina has suggested that all safety related signage is pictorial in form, this is simply untue. ALL roadsigns are safety related and should be as simple to understand in a short a time as possible (remembering you can be passsing these signs at 120km/h). This clearly includes directional signs which should if anything be the most clear of all the signs as they are the ones which distract people the most as they parse them for the necessary information.

ALL CAPITAL FONTS ARE NOTORIOUSLY DIFFICULT TO READ AT SPEED. The UK has invested hundreds of millions on this sort of stuff and 'transport medium' is a world respected font for roadsigns. They have exported it to a number of countries for use on their signage.

Dermot raises a very good point-made up irish placenames. I'm pretty sure even native irish speakers refer to many places in Ireland by their english placenames as they simply don't know them in irish.

NavanJunction1

murphaph wrote:

Dublin and 99% of Ireland is an english speaking country, despite what the census says. Cupla focail suddenly turns into fluency when people are asked every 10 years :rolleyes:

No, I speak Gaeilge daily, recieve and send texts in it, and have also use it in work, and on television and radio.

It isn't dead - you just ain't talking to the right people.

mackerski wrote:

Finding themselves thus without any Irish language name for the town, they simply made one up.... No tradition? Invent one.

That's where most Irish place names came from in the first place. Anglicised versions of Gaelic names. So popular they invented 'Ballykissangel'.

Donegal, Tyrone, Belfast, Derry, Sligo, Dublin, Dundalk, Armagh, Cork, Kerry.... I could go on for ever.

Whether you like it or not, you country has a gaelic heritage, and you live in it. Ignore ok, but you are surrounded by it.