Should we have bi-lingual road signs

Sponge Bob

How about German with everything, it has been done .

icdg

jamesnp wrote: »

On a personal note, people consistently point to the cost of implementation... The reason cost will be inflated is due to the negligence of government after government in this country. This work was already done on a phased basis from 1922 and through peoples ineptitude and lack of legislation, it was allowed to fall back. The Official Languages Act means we will [be forced] to do this once, we will do it correctly, and we will only pay once. Costs will be reduced by this legislation.

-jp

A bit of a conflict has arisen here in that the Official Langauges Act was driven and sponsored by the Department of Community, Rural, and Gaeltacht Affairs apparently without any consultation with the Department of Transport which has responsiblity for road signs and who have been fighting its implementation ever since (government departments tend to guard their turf and don't like when another Department legislates in "their" area). As a result when the Minister made the Statutory Instrument bring Section 9 (duty of public bodies to sign bilingually ) he included the following provision which those relying on the above Act for a change in policy might want to note:

"(3) These Regulations do not apply to...
(b) traffic signs—
(i) to which Regulations under section 95(2) of the Act of 1961 apply, or
(ii) to which a direction under section 95(16) of that Act applies,"

(Official Languages Act 2003 (Section 9) Regulations 2008)

This effectively excludes road signs from the application of Section 9 and means the requirement for both languages to have equal status doesn't apply.

Personally, I would favour the Scots system - Irish in yellow and English in white, both in Transport Medium (or Heavy where appropiate) mixed case. I don't see the need to change from Transport and certainly, in this time of recession, would not advocate a mass change in the design of our road signage. The problem with Irish signs is not the TSM (nearly identical to the UK TSM) but with how its implemented. Keeping Transport would allow the change to be minimal. It works in the UK and I don't see the need to change. (Besides, they couldn't just take Mr Reil's font, they would need to run a public procurement excercise, put it on e-tenders, pay a lot of money etc when they already have Transport).

icdg

Yes - different fonts

icdg wrote: »

Personally, I would favour the Scots system - Irish in yellow and English in white, both in Transport Medium (or Heavy where appropiate) mixed case. I don't see the need to change from Transport and certainly, in this time of recession, would not advocate a mass change in the design of our road signage. The problem with Irish signs is not the TSM (nearly identical to the UK TSM) but with how its implemented. Keeping Transport would allow the change to be minimal. It works in the UK and I don't see the need to change. (Besides, they couldn't just take Mr Reil's font, they would need to run a public procurement excercise, put it on e-tenders, pay a lot of money etc when they already have Transport).

This is my favoured option as well.

KevR

I don't really have a problem with the way signs are at the moment but I would like to see signs with only English outside of Gaeltacht areas and bi-lingual signs in Gaeltacht areas. Obviously if English only signs were to happen (in English speaking areas) it would have to be on a phased basis (as and when signs need replacing anyway) and not some huge costly project replacing all road signs in one go (some of which are brand new!).

In Wales I do find the bi-lingual signs annoying. The Welsh bit catches my eye at first and it basically slows down my reading of the signs. I would imagine it's a bit similar for people visiting Ireland. It's different when you're from Ireland or Wales because you will be quite familiar with placenames in Irish/Welsh even if you're poor at speaking the language so it won't really be a problem.

Gonzo

No - Irish placenames only everywhere

jamesnp wrote: »

First, legislation is already in place - the debate is over and the point is moot.

Secondly with 8% as the threshold, every county in the country would still need bilingual signage according to the last census.

And finally, with relation to the last point about "Turas", see the picture below for comparison.


-jp

that is an amazing improvement, why cant we have these sort of signs all over our country now. the current irish&english signs are really terrible, hard to read.

Zube

jamesnp wrote: »

In my opinion there is no debate on the issue. The constitution and Official Languages Act are clear that Irish is the first language.

Article 8
1. The Irish language as the national language is the first official language.
2. The English language is recognised as a second official language.
3. Provision may, however, be made by law for the exclusive use of either of the said languages for any one or more official purposes, either throughout the State or in any part thereof.

So, this is a non-issue for the Constitution. The stipulation that signage must be in Irish or both is in the Act. Acts are always up for debate and change.

garrettr

Yes - different fonts

icdg wrote: »

A bit of a conflict has arisen here in that the Official Langauges Act was driven and sponsored by the Department of Community, Rural, and Gaeltacht Affairs apparently without any consultation with the Department of Transport which has responsiblity for road signs and who have been fighting its implementation ever since (government departments tend to guard their turf and don't like when another Department legislates in "their" area). As a result when the Minister made the Statutory Instrument bring Section 9 (duty of public bodies to sign bilingually ) he included the following provision which those relying on the above Act for a change in policy might want to note:

"(3) These Regulations do not apply to...
(b) traffic signs—
(i) to which Regulations under section 95(2) of the Act of 1961 apply, or
(ii) to which a direction under section 95(16) of that Act applies,"

(Official Languages Act 2003 (Section 9) Regulations 2008)

This effectively excludes road signs from the application of Section 9 and means the requirement for both languages to have equal status doesn't apply.

Personally, I would favour the Scots system - Irish in yellow and English in white, both in Transport Medium (or Heavy where appropriate) mixed case. I don't see the need to change from Transport and certainly, in this time of recession, would not advocate a mass change in the design of our road signage. The problem with Irish signs is not the TSM (nearly identical to the UK TSM) but with how its implemented. Keeping Transport would allow the change to be minimal. It works in the UK and I don't see the need to change. (Besides, they couldn't just take Mr Reil's font, they would need to run a public procurement excercise, put it on e-tenders, pay a lot of money etc when they already have Transport).

Hello all,

Garrett Reil here, author of the research you mention. I'm delighted to see so much discussion, thanks to everyone who has entered into the debate.

Just for further information, I understand that people become heated on the topic of language, but some of the issues central to my design research are issues of functionality, and research conducted about the needs of an ageing driving population. This is the reason I produced a prototype typeface for testing purposes, it incorporates many design features which have been introduced since Transport (a design classic) was designed in the early sixties.

Regarding Ireland's use of Transport, this use (upper case and 'italic/slanted') entirely thwarts its design intent, so we have a fine silk purse and rendered it a sows ear, so to speak.

The function of the design prototype as it relates to ageing is covered in part on this post at my research blog.

Colour-differentiation is used internationally and there is sound research to recommend it. Many will be familiar with its use in airports. The principle is that once you decode the colour you are interested in (in a milisecond) you have no cause to look at the alternative colour.

In my own testing a majority of users chose the new signs for clarity over the current arrangement. Like many design issues (and unlike the poll here) this is, I suspect, because rather than asking a relatively abstract question, users are presented with visual alternatives and asked to chose the clearer choice.

The majority was much more extreme in the case of an Irish Language user test, which I believe testifies to the failure of the current design to serve Irish well. What surprised me, was that these users also overwhelmingly rejected the Welsh sign design (I've put some information here on this research result) - I had anticipated the 'equal prominence' of the Welsh signs would be favoured. But as they say, if you know the answer, why do the research!

On the issue of language and the Act referred to, I can only say that this is law and it does seem contradictory to create exemptions. Discussions as to changing the status of Irish are quite another issue. My interest is in the effectiveness of the signs for all road users, any form of bilingual sign reduces effectiveness (if for no other reason by virtue of the amount of information it contains). Therefore, proposing an alternative means of differentiation is a valid research route,and I would hope that some work is commissioned in this direction (irrespective of the procurement means the government uses).

I hope this is of interest and helpful to the discussion.

Garrett

murphaph

Looks like the law allows english only road signage alright but in reality the screaming reaction of hysterical Gaeilgoirs shows just why we'll never see them.

If we must clutter the signs with irish in english speaking areas then I agree that the distinction should be made by colour with irish in yellow on motorway and national route signs and dark green on regional and unclassified route signage (just as in some parts of Scotland).

This would be an improvement for all;
The english names could finally be put into mixed case (provenQuickerToReadThanAllCaps because the human brain recognises THESHAPEOFTHEWORD just as much the letters in it-in fact when we read we do not look at all the letters) and the irish can be put into a font that isn't a complete joke.

We could patch a lot of signs rather than replacing them en-masse but until the economy improves I'd be against any such works taking place.

jamesnp

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, different colours

icdg wrote: »

"(3) These Regulations do not apply to...
(b) traffic signs—
(i) to which Regulations under section 95(2) of the Act of 1961 apply, or
(ii) to which a direction under section 95(16) of that Act applies,"

(Official Languages Act 2003 (Section 9) Regulations 2008)

This effectively excludes road signs from the application of Section 9 and means the requirement for both languages to have equal status doesn't apply.

As far as I'm aware this measure was brought by the minister in reply to whinging from An Roinn Iompair, but with the caveat that this was a time limited instrument to give them ample time to plan the roll out. They have now had 6 years since the intention of the act was clear, now is certainly a time THEY should be conducting their own research rather than leaving Conradh na Gaeilge to instigate studies.

Zube wrote:

So, this is a non-issue for the Constitution. The stipulation that signage must be in Irish or both is in the Act. Acts are always up for debate and change.

There was a case brought re: status of Irish and article 8, and, as far as I am aware, the official languages act was the remedial legislation brought as a result. However, I'm not sure of that, I'll need to do a little more research. Interpretation of the constitution is rarely as black as white as the original text.

Regardless, not only is it a legislative & constitutional issue in Ireland, but it is an issue at EU level. Irish is an official language of the EU and should the EU begin to regulate road signage, which I believe is one of their plans, then bilingual signs would be required at EU level. Why not do it now and get it over with? The status of Irish at EU level will not change.

-jp

murphaph

jamesnp wrote: »

The status of Irish at EU level will not change/QUOTE]
It will if the EU believes that the number of speakers is too low to merit translating every piece of EU law into the language.

jamesnp

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, different colours

murphaph wrote: »

jamesnp wrote: »

The status of Irish at EU level will not change/QUOTE]
It will if the EU believes that the number of speakers is too low to merit translating every piece of EU law into the language.

Hard to accept that that's possible if things continue as they are now. Let's not forget that Irish is one of the fastest growing languages in the EU...

-jp

dlofnep

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, same colour

jamesnp wrote: »

-jp

Really like the second one.

garrettr

Yes - different fonts

jamesnp wrote: »

...THEY should be conducting their own research rather than leaving Conradh na Gaeilge to instigate studies...
-jp

Hi James,

Just a minor, but important point of clarification, I was commissioned to write an independent report for CnaG - who were made aware of my research by the National College of Art and Design. They did not however instigate or in any way fund my design research which was entirely independent academic research, (self funded!) and predated their enquiry by a couple of years.

Garrett

murphaph

jamesnp wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Hard to accept that that's possible if things continue as they are now. Let's not forget that Irish is one of the fastest growing languages in the EU...

-jp

Hopefully Irish will continue to grow in stature, in spite of the failed methods used heretofor to 'promote' the language. My point was merely technical-any language can be removed as an official EU language in theory and irish must be one of the smallest official languages.

jamesnp

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, different colours

murphaph wrote: »

jamesnp wrote: »

Hopefully Irish will continue to grow in stature, in spite of the failed methods used heretofor to 'promote' the language. My point was merely technical-any language can be removed as an official EU language in theory and irish must be one of the smallest official languages.

Yeah, one of the smallest. Maltese is smaller has a total of about 370,000 speakers. Best information on Irish is from Census 2006 which said that there are 538,283 people who speak it daily. Tough one to call.

Though you're, of course, correct, chances are very slim.

-jp

G_R

No - Irish placenames only everywhere

jamesnp wrote: »

murphaph wrote: »

Yeah, one of the smallest. Maltese is smaller has a total of about 370,000 speakers. Best information on Irish is from Census 2006 which said that there are 538,283 people who speak it daily. Tough one to call.

Though you're, of course, correct, chances are very slim.

-jp

i know its OT but i find it very harh to believe that over half a million people (more than one in eight) speak irish daily.

Jeanious

No - Irish placenames only everywhere

jamesnp wrote: »

Yeah, one of the smallest. Maltese is smaller has a total of about 370,000 speakers. Best information on Irish is from Census 2006 which said that there are 538,283 people who speak it daily. Tough one to call.

Though you're, of course, correct, chances are very slim.

-jp

Ah come on, if thats the true figure (and ive no reason to doubt ya) then there must be either a serious "irish mammy effect" on them results, or else people think that hearing "na ceitre cuairtanna" on the luas every day counts! i cant for a moment believe that half a million people "speak" Irish every day in the true sense of the word.

i think, at this stage, that having the Irish on road signs and trains and stuff is nothing more than an expensive novelty, and is almost completely impractical for everyday purposes. While I havent got a problem with using the Irish in some gaelteacht areas, i think they should be bilingual at most, as it wouldnt make sense for warning and danger signs etc. to be monolingually irish.

Here's a little something i prepared earlier (for demonstration purposes only of course!)



(....in an ideal world i suppose!)

btw i think the font and colours of that sign are excellent, really stands out much better than the current batch.

dannym08

Yes - different fonts

dannym08 wrote: »

jamesnp wrote: »

i know its OT but i find it very harh to believe that over half a million people (more than one in eight) speak irish daily.

[OT]
They do in schools, educational establishments and Gaeilge discussion groups, as opposed to the workplace, in shops & at home etc i.e. dat to day communication.
[/OT]

Amtmann

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, same colour

Great to see my photo being put to such use!

Yes - different fonts

That colour scheme is identical to the UK motorway signs.



Why do we always seem to copy others and then change it to make it worse!!!

murphaph

Deleted User wrote: »

That colour scheme is identical to the UK motorway signs.



Why do we always seem to copy others and then change it to make it worse!!!

Because we're gimps. Graham(?) has a point when he talks about transport though. Transport is iconic but better fonts have since been developed for use on roadsigns (by the FHWA et. al) have spent millions developing Clearview and I'd have no problem implementing that seeing a we are not 'used to' transport really, only a (rubbish all capitals) version of it. We could just as easily change to Clearview as 'proper' transport tbh.

G_R

No - Irish placenames only everywhere

coyle wrote: »

that sign is 100 times better than what we have now. and if the Irish translation must be included, then the english should be in yellow because it stands out more and even if 500,000 people do speak Irish on a daily basis (even tho i highly doubt it) it means that 3,100,000 dont. We shouldn't make the Irish stand out more just for the sake of it. Thats pointless.

Also, if the design of roadsigns does change, i think they should just replace old ones with new ones as required. The old ones arent great but do the job, no point putting further strain on the public purse

topper75

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, different colours

dannym08 wrote: »

... and if the Irish translation must be included, ...

They are not translations.

dannym08

Yes - different fonts

dannym08 wrote: »

Also, if the design of roadsigns does change, i think they should just replace old ones with new ones as required. The old ones arent great but do the job, no point putting further strain on the public purse

Within reason, I know of some "pre-warboys" signs that are still up in London.

G_R

No - Irish placenames only everywhere

topper75 wrote: »

They are not translations.

then what are they??

the Irish Equivalent

dannym08

Yes - different fonts

dannym08 wrote: »

then what are they??

the Irish Equivalent

You may be more correct to say that they are the original names in most cases, with a modified spelling.

Personally I think it's nonsense to "dream up" an Irish version for a place that never had an Irish name, but if the place has (historically) had an Irish name by all means use it, rather than trying to translate the English placename into Irish.

IIMII

Yes - but with the same font for both languages, same colour

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally I think it's nonsense to "dream up" an Irish version for a place that never had an Irish name, but if the place has (historically) had an Irish name by all means use it, rather than trying to translate the English placename into Irish.

Personally I think that the English makey-uppy words of gibberish that pass as English versions of Irish placenames are nonsense. The English language has it's own versions of virtually every place on the planet - Victoria Falls, Paris, Beijing. On a scale of "dreamed up" names translations, I think the English language and its speakers are every bit as bad (if not worse) than any other language in the planet.

After all the language has a history of being super-imposed on places all over the world, Victoria Falls being a prime example of a "dreamed up" nonsense name. What we are talking about here are names which may originate in English but are Gaelicised so as not to have break into English to say them.

Nothing wrong with that. When we spreak French, are we expected to say instead of "Oui, j'habite à dublin", "Oui, j'habite à bleedin' dooobelllin" for the purpose of authenticity?

Yes - different fonts

Without drifting any further off topic, Anglicised placenames are necessary for english speakers to be able to pronunce the word.

Having said that, the current trend is to try and spell the placenames so as to sound similar to the local way of pronuncing, eg Beijing, Mumbai (Paris is spelt the same in french, just pronunces Parie).
If so when can we expect to see the sign to "Galliv".

icdg

Deleted User wrote: »

Within reason, I know of some "pre-warboys" signs that are still up in London.

Never mind London, there are still some of the Irish equivilant up in Dublin, the Dun Laoghaire / Killiney area is a good place for these.

On our "pre-Warboys" signs, the Irish was in all caps like the English, but in a much smaller size. On the original 1977 modern signs, Irish was in mixed case but not italics - italics were only introduced on signs erected after 1989.

West Briton

No - Irish placenames only everywhere

This may well earn me a ban, but feck it, it needs to be said. The gimps who go around sticking up "As Gaeilge Anois!" stickers on some pretty inappropriate places need to be counteracted with something like this.