the "mixed messages" section is kinda funny..

quote:

The audacity of 'nope' Why do Toronto signs have to be so negative? With so many signs in the city – most telling us what not to do – are any worth heeding? January 03, 2009 Kenneth Kidd FEATURE WRITER At the foot of Lower Spadina Ave., there's now a spanking new "wave deck." It opened in the fall as an extension of the sidewalk out over the water. With its sinewy slopes and multiple levels, the whole affair has a wonderful funhouse sensibility. Or at least it does once you get past a very large sign stating: Please enjoy and note: Municipal Code #608 No rollerblades, skateboards or bicycles on the deck. Attention Parents & Caregivers: It is your responsibility to watch and supervise your children. Caution deep water – no swimming allowed. Put litter in the garbage. Deck may be slippery when wet. Pay attention to slopes and steps. In the face of such commandments – and a raft of others erected in the last year – you'd be forgiven for thinking Toronto's official motto has been changed from "Diversity Our Strength" to "No You Can't" or "The Audacity of Nope." We seem to have this insatiable need to put up all manner of signs, mostly telling us what we can't do. It's not that signs can't be useful. Of course they can; without them, chaos might well ensue. But there's the question of tone, for one. So many are cast in the negative: No Entry, No Parking, No Dumping, No Golfing, No Ball Playing. Marcel Danesi, a semiotics professor at the University of Toronto who's spent a lifetime studying symbols' meanings, thinks the tone of so many local signs might reflect an increasingly secular world. "This was the stuff of the priests who populated my childhood and adolescence, but now it's the politicians and those people out there who try to impose," he says. "That official level ... has taken over from God, hasn't it?" But there's also a less-than-flattering assumption in these notices. Public washrooms in the city sport signs instructing us how to wash our hands, complete with pictures. Are we really such halfwits? "A lot of this is just annoying," says John Staddon, an emeritus professor of psychology at Duke University in North Carolina who's lately turned his attention to signage. "There is a certain mindset, which is more prevalent in some countries ... where it's just the letter of the law and the brain's turned off. The people who put up the signs, I think, operate in that mode." Why? Legal concerns are a factor. In North America, there's a growing fear of litigation, against which signs are seen as the first defence. Jack Hope, a liability lawyer and partner at Steinberg Morton Hope & Israel, says most public notices fall into one of two categories. The first is contractual in nature, which includes signs that say, for instance, the parking garage isn't responsible for theft or damage. "The essence of the sign is, `let's clarify our relationship,'" says Hope. "You're paying $4 to park. That doesn't include guarding your car." The other type involves protecting yourself against claims of negligence. Hence all those signs telling us floors can be slippery when wet. Hence also that big sign at the Lower Spadina "wave deck." "If they don't see anything there that would warn people," says city parks director Paul Ronan, "then we end up assuming a significant liability on behalf of the taxpayer, which we're trying to avoid." But he's under no illusion that warnings will deter those hell-bent on doing something risky. So, do signs have any practical effect on people's behaviour. Not as much as we hope. And sometimes, the result is dangerously opposite. When everyday notices proliferate, argues Staddon, they fade into the distant background of our consciousness, like wallpaper. That's partly because our expectations have been lowered by experience. "People ignore things that are truly useful because they're confronted with so much that isn't," he says. There is one area where we do heed: traffic signs. (In part because of a potential ticket.) Ironically, this may make driving more dangerous. Drivers are always looking for signs indicating what we can and can't do, what the speed limit is, etc. As a result, road conditions and vehicles around us get less attention. In North America, "the idea is that our drivers should be given no discretion, and you can't trust their judgment at all," says Staddon. "To the extent that you take away the opportunity for drivers to make independent decisions, they're that much more dangerous. They're expecting instructions rather than looking" at what's happening. Across Europe there's a growing movement to remove all manner of excess signage, even stoplights and sidewalks. The practical result is that everyone has to be more focused on the road, more cautious. In parts of Europe where they've done this – London's Kensington High Street – the number of accidents involving pedestrians has fallen by 40 per cent or more. And Staddon notes, even in the U.S., when roundabouts have replaced stop signs, the number of collisions typically dropped by 40 per cent, and deaths by 90 per cent. But are North Americans apt to embrace this shift from rules to discretion? Danesi recalls taking a taxi in Naples several years ago. It was early morning and the cab went through every red light, something an American colleague travelling with him found most distressing. Danesi asked the cabbie about it. The reply: "Are you crazy? Stopping here when there's no traffic? What do you think we are, robots?"

quote:

MIXED MESSAGES Traffic signs are supposed to be clear. Confusion is not their aim. But when a number of them are bundled together, that can sometimes be the result. To wit: the collection of signs on a pole in front of First Canadian Place on King St. W., above. That you can't ever park to the right of the pole seems clear enough. But the next two signs seem to suggest that, after 6 p.m. and before 8 a.m., you both can and cannot park to the left of the pole. And you risk being towed. Meanwhile, on either side of the pole, you'll face the great "no standing/no stopping" quandary. As in, what that means, even before you get to the time limits. What, exactly, is the difference between standing and stopping? An informal poll of reasonably enlightened people (okay, the newsroom) elicited no right answer, with this possible exception: "I know it costs a lot of money." WikiAnswer was no more helpful: "This question has not been answered yet." So you can forgive the Toronto Police spokesperson who also gave the wrong answer, only to call back with a corrected version. For the record, "stopping" means bringing your vehicle to a halt for reasons other than traffic congestion. "Standing" is letting passengers out and then carrying on. So here you could in theory "stand" between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. as long as you didn't "stop." But then you'd probably have to stop just to figure out the signs. — Kenneth Kidd

source:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/561204

___________________
Palm Trees > Pine Trees , Sand > Snow