 |
A project to make businesses more aware of their customer experience, and how to fix it. By Mark Hurst. |
| About Mark Hurst | Mark's Gel Conference | New York Times Story on This Is Broken | Newsletter: Subscribe | RSS Feed |
Search this site:
Categories:
- Advertising
- Current Affairs
- Customer Service
- Fixed
- Food and Drink
- Just for Fun
- Misc
- Not broken
- Place
- Product Design
- Signs
- Travel
- Web/Tech
Previous: Citibank under fraud attack | Main | Next: Misleading political telemarketers
March 7, 2006 12:03 AM
Broken: Stop sign
Sally Lewis sends in a picture from Louisiana:
These two signs on the same pole completely baffled me and my passengers.
Was I supposed to stop or keep going?
Actually this is an intervention of a worm hole connecting two parallel universes fully indicative of the "String Theory."
This is one of those classic "broken expeirences," it's not possible to prove that this isn't broken. Definatley Broken.
Actually, I have to disagree. There are two areas in question here: the driving "lane", and the potential parking "lane". (We don't drive right along the curb, remember). The stop sign refers to the driving lane, and the no stopping sign refers to the parking lane.
"No stopping" is a form of "no parking" (the layout of the sign should have been a hint) which specifies that sitting in an effectively parked, but running, car is also unacceptable.
Sorry, but not broken.
OK, I was going to say that I think I understood what these signs are attempting to communicate, but I sure don't want to be the guy who says "not broken" to this.
It is funny, yes. And yes, it's not broken. Karen's hit the nail on the head, but I'm going to elaborate:
Most users we discuss in this forum are assumed to have the right to operate or otherwise interpret things as an *inexperienced* user - the instructions should NOT need a manual in order to be interpretable.
***That is (more or less) how we here DEFINE broken vs. not broken.***
Such is NOT the case with drivers, who must be *licensed* (i.e. instructed in the rules and operation of the device and its context).
Stop, here, is seen in two different contexts. Drivers are expected to know the difference between "STOP" - a moving instruction, and "STOP" - a parking instruction.
isn't it somewhat likely, especially if this is a narrow street and there are other cars around, that in stopping you would be inclined to pull partway into the area which would be considered 'near the curb' and therefore in the no stopping zone?
The poster up top is slightly incorrect. In a parking context, there are three related concepts: parking, standing and stopping. Parking is a car sitting with the engine off, driver or not. Standing involves a driver sitting in a running car. And stopping means stopping to discharge or pick up a passenger. They are supersets of one another. No Standing implies No Parking. No Stopping implies No Standing and No Parking.
Thus, anyone may stop at the stop sign and not run afoul of the "No Stopping" rule as long as they don't discharge or pick up any passengers.
Nothing is better than total happiness.
A Ham Sandwich is better than nothing.
Ergo, a ham sandwich is better than total happiness.
--
Stop sign = Full stop for 3 seconds
No stopping = No having the driver stop the car at the curb and stay for long periods of time, with the intent of picking up/droping off passengers/stalking.
The two stops mean different things legally.
Though it is still broken.
The no stopping sign must be in refrence to the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun. That's it...
It doesn't matter what it means. If it leaves any room for ambiguity, it is broken. Especially when it comes to signs that can cause you to get a ticket...
DaveC, you're giving "licensed" drivers waaaaay too much credit.
This is exactly the kind of logic that gives the "not broken wackos" their well deserved rep.
With Karen, DaveC and Jim on this one: Not broken. Stopping is in two different contexts as indicated by the two different format signs. Anyone with the legal right to drive should know the difference, and anyone who doesn't shouldn't be driving.
Funny nonetheless.
What's really broken here is that someone was too lazy and/or cheap to find a way to display these signs that made it clear that they are to be read in two different contexts, rather than just settling for bolting them both to the nearest utility pole. At the very least, they should have obeyed the convention that traffic control signs are generally displayed perpendicular to the flow of traffic, whereas parking control signs are usually closer to parallel to the roadway (maybe angled just a little towards the traffic).
Yes, an experienced driver should understand the difference between the two meanings of "stop" here. But in the real world, some drivers are less experienced, some are foreign and not familiar with local context, and some (like me) will just start laughing their fool heads off when they see signs like this. For these drivers, this sign is a needless and possibly dangerous distraction.
(It also reflects poorly on the local townsfolk. If I'd seen this sign, after I finished laughing, and then avoided the last-minute collision I just nearly caused by not watching the road, my first thought would be, "What a bunch of hicks. Can't they afford to buy a proper signpost or two?")
It's all about Einstein's theory of relativity. If you were to travel at extremely close the speed of light, you would appear to be not moving to anyone outside of your vehicle, but to anyone in the vehicle, you would be moving forward quite fast, in time as well as space.
I was actually with Sally when we came across this sign. It's easy to understand what the person posting the signs was trying to do but the way in which it was done was quite confusing. As for the people who are talking about a "parking lane," there was no such lane. It was a very narrow street with barely room for two cars to pass. Someone was just very lazy and didnt feel like jackhammering out a hole in the sidewalk and placing the sign in concrete elsewhere.
Yes, I know, there's no parking "lane." I suppose I should have said "area." And of course there's no space to park there. If there was space, there probably would have been no need for a "no stopping" sign.
Also, regarding this comment: "Someone was just very lazy and didnt feel like jackhammering out a hole in the sidewalk and placing the sign in concrete elsewhere." That's fine with me. My tax money would have paid for their industriousness, so I prefer laziness in government whenever possible. :)
Actually, being from Louisiana my(own)self [as they say here], I fully understand the meaning of this picture. However, to fully appreciate it, one must translate it into "Cajun-ese" first. It says: 'when rowing your pirogue in the bathtub and you "catch" a flat tire, how many pancakes does it take to fill up a doghouse?' Of course, anyone from this part of the country knows that though...
"DaveC, you're giving "licensed" drivers waaaaay too much credit."
Not me - I said '...they are *expected* to know...'. It's the Ministry that gives drivers too much credit.
This would be even more confusing in Québec.
Our no stopping sign is a silhouette of a stop sign with a red circle around it and a red slash going through it.
The no stopping sign really should have been placed several feet before the stop sign to show that it applies to the street in general, not to the area in front of the stop sign.
if they meant no parking, they should have said no parking, or at least put the sign on a smaller pole, maybe a little ways away from the stop sign...
And the winner is ruidh.
"And stopping means stopping to discharge or pick up a passenger. They are supersets of one another. No Standing implies No Parking. No Stopping implies No Standing and No Parking.
Thus, anyone may stop at the stop sign and not run afoul of the "No Stopping" rule as long as they don't discharge or pick up any passengers."
The law is the law, BUT what if?
Your passenger catches on fire while your at or near the intersection. Acting on the advice given to us since childhood, they exit the vehicle, drop to the ground and roll away from the vehicle, an obvious traffic violation. Do you make them pay the ticket that you get?
Re: "Standing involves a driver sitting in a running car."
San Francisco has signs that TRULY baffled me when I first saw them:
"Bus Stop - No Standing"
And there wasn't a bench to sit on. You're supposed to squat while waiting for the bus, or what? I had to ask a local what the heck that meant, and he pointed out that Standing means sitting (!) in your car with the engine running.
Certainly not intuitive.
Comments on this entry are closed
Previous: Citibank under fraud attack | Main | Next: Misleading political telemarketers
Slow and go. Slow and go.
Posted by: Capt. Wafter at March 7, 2006 12:27 AM