Japanese symbols that speak without words
arun.is
arun.is
I feel like there has been a lot of unnecessary pushback about 'Thing in Japan' articles on the internet. Guess what, there are cool things everywhere; including Japan. Write about the ones you know about!
Or, if you like, it’s still all just orientalism.
That's the point of the whole meme. People think it's interesting because of Japan not because of the content itself is interesting.
Did you know there are 12,000 Zabka stores in Poland and they are almost as ubiquitous as konbinis? Guess what, no gives a fuck because it's not Japan but an eastern European country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBabka_(convenience_store)
there are memes about zabka on social media as well (i've personally seen some on insta and tiktok), maybe not in the same scale, but there are.
Americans focus on Japan, but they could make the same comparison with many other countries.
Maybe because it's OK to be worse than Japan (it's Japan! The orient! The mystery!) but embarrassing to be worse than Poland.
> And still, in my life here in the United States, words are still needed to convey meaning.
As if the US doesn’t have easily identifiable police and firefighters. Or handicap placards/license plates. Or public transportation logos (such as the NY MTA logo).
I think Japan does a pretty good job with signage in general and some of it is interesting to read about. Some things like the newbie sticker might be worth adopting elsewhere. Other things like the old people sticker might be considered age discrimination in other countries.
But framing it like only Japan knows how to use symbols or “read the air” is just dumb.
I recognize some of them, from seeing them in Japan, but I thought they meant some kind of taxi.
A symbolic ear would be better to designate deafness, a walking stick age.
They are excellent symbols – for the society they arose in, which was at the other extreme end to the fragmentation, atomization, and attention span erosion we are experiencing today. In their case, choosing esthetics over learning curve totally made sense, because the learning curve was not a concern for them. Our society OTOH cannot afford such niceties.
Imagine being a 75-year-old who runs ultramarathons, having to have a walking stick on their car.
A hearing impaired person may not want to be symbolized by their less-than-well-working body part.
I doubt the deaf people care, though I also don't doubt at all that some virtue signallers are highly offended on their behalf.
In fact most of the symbols talked about in the article seemed of no meaning to me except looking unique and different and sometimes even nice.
Interesting to read such a colonial comment in 2026 - the British Empire is long gone.
I realize I in fact still do not know what the "L" is supposed to mean, in my country.
Another thing I found fascinating: the way the symbol that marks a fire truck doesn't employ the red color we would expect in the West, and is instead based on the shape of an ice crystal. A bit like an amulet to ward evil away, there's some kind of atavistic magical function still afoot there.
[1] the wikipedia page linked from the article is worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mon_(emblem)
Btw. medieval Europe, or classical Greece, just to give two non-Eastern examples, also had many of the characteristics I mentioned in my comment: a strong communal spirit and shared symbolic life which connects one to a coherent and poetic view of the world. But pointing out ways cultures very different from ours might have been superior in some senses to ours is one of the most triggering moves, especially on a techie-oriented forum like this one.
People can love the Japanese for their unique characteristics and they can love the Japanese for the things they appropriated from other cultures. Just like the British.
Fact is though, in many ways, Japanese culture is a lot more caring, considerate and kind than the British.
>I doubt that purely wordless, symbolic system was truly the ultimate pinnacle of operational clarity.
Agreed, but only because Brits aren't really good at designing things for longevity, whereas the Japanese are great at it.
How exactly is Britain not a country good at designing things for longevity? It is probably amongst the countries in the world that goes to the most effort to protect its architectural history, and also has some world class modern design schools.
The government also has a unified design system that makes using government digital services really easy.
why is critiquing Japanese design "open misanthropy" but you're more than happy to critique British design?
As for the British imperialism - I completely agree that the British empire was a disgusting imperialist and racist project that destroyed economies and cultures.
Not to 'whatabout' but it's worth pointing out in the context of this discussion, that the Japanese Empire was at one point a disgusting imperialist and racist project as well, that similarly destroyed economies and cultures.
I think the Japenese designs are interesting, I am not the original thread commenter. I do however agree that there is a lot of 'Orientalism' that still goes on in the modern day, which is itself a form of xenophobia (it is highlighting Japanese culture as something exotic, and others Japanese people, who are just people same as me and you).
I'm not sure why a discussion of Japanese design required you to attack modern British design practices, and conflating criticisms of Orientalism with being imperialist seems a stretch.
Interesting that a lot of US road signs have words on them: https://ygraph.com/graphs/roadsigns-20120316T030941-ekrruua.... , or are obvious, whereas in Europe drivers need to learn what they mean: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh...
For example the yield triangle, no stopping and no parking are probably unfamiliar to US drivers.
Meanwhile all Alfa Romeo Quadrofoglio drivers might be mistaken for drivers with missing limbs in Japan.
It did also make me a bit worried about the expected level of driver education...
American signs very frequently combine both styles - for instance, you see the above words next to a sign with arrows for whatever lanes, wordlessly illustrating the turn types permitted.
If someone is a new driver, who hasn't seen the symbolic signs enough, the word signs are a good fallback. The goal is to maximize accessibility.
The obvious benefit of the European style is that you don't need to speak the language in order to understand the signs, something that is clearly less important given the relative homogeneity of language in the USA.
But at least to me, the European road signs are also more quick to read. For example, the "only right turns" and "speed limit 60" are exactly the same shape and color in the USA, while in Europe there is more of a logical system (which also means you don't "memorize a bunch of symbols", you learn the "language" of the signs), such as blue disc means "mandatory", red circle means "prohibited", red triangle means "warning", etc.
The US doesn't have nearly that issue, since we have tons of symbolic signs, and few languages, which share a ton of close cognates anyway. For instance, most Mexicans I've heard will use the verb "parquear" or "aparcar" to mean "to park" rather than "estacionar" - so as you might expect, they have zero trouble decoding a sign saying "NO PARKING 9AM - 6PM" which is one of the most complicated text-only signs you usually see.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh...
> If someone is a new driver, who hasn't seen the symbolic signs enough, the word signs are a good fallback. The goal is to maximize accessibility.
That's the thing I'm concerned about! In Europe you're not allowed onto the road unless you have already proven that you have memorised all the symbols and can identify them on demand. You don't need to maximise accessibility because the required level of education is higher.
Not just driver, but of the general population. A few decades ago, the general reading level was at the 6th grade (thanks to the policies of Ronald Regan) and republicans think that is too high and have been working intensely to lower it. Won't be surprised if it's dropped given the "golden" opportunity of covid. I know it's only been a few years (centuries for most Americans) since Betsy DeVos was secretary of education. Remember that era?
No parking is usually a red curb or striped out area, which is different but also nonverbal. The complication is that many places have a EULA on parking spots that reads something like "No parking, 9-5pm, except on Tuesdays and full moons, or in a yellow vehicle, or by written agreement with a minimum of two signatures not including Bob". Good luck putting that in an icon.
That "no stopping" sign is unfamiliar to me, I guess we write it out but it's a pretty rare thing here to not allow stopping.
Most of the rest is familiar and/or obvious except the ones that have German words on them. Many of the concepts in writing don't exist on the German signs, I don't know if you don't have these signs or just not listed on your chart. Some of the English ones are just tooltips; it's never ok to stop on a railroad track but someone thought a reminder would be nice.
I have also noticed that parking rules are usually much simpler in the EU than in the US, and maybe the format just makes it cumbersome enough to spell out abstruse rules that in the end, the rules just have to stay simple enough.
It's not totally true though because lately many cities in France have enacted complicated parking rules that are explained nowhere except on a buried page on their website that might or might not be up to date. But that's just because modern societies are straying further and further away from the rule of law with every passing day, and there is nothing that citizens can do about it.
I mean... Europe had to develop a system that works regardless of whether you speak the local language. The USA assumed every driver would speak English. I would tend to favor the European strategy, though given how we've held out on adopting the metric system I won't hold my breath.
In New Zealand we require a yellow [L] sign on cars with learner drivers (with learners drivers licenses). However I get the impression that other drivers are less considerate around a car displaying the [L] sign.
I suspect New Zealanders are generally far less considerate than Japanese. Politeness avoids a trillion sharp edges.
We also seem to be copying some of the US predilection of arsehole Ute (pickup) drivers.
i've never seen that before, and what a great phrase!
Also, i'm in the US and don't know why this exists, but recently see this all over.
https://www.liftedtrucks.comAnd I think the arsehole ute/pickup drivers are more of a tradie demographic.
Lifted 4WDs here seen to most commonly be private older vehicles owned by a wider cross-section of society (lifted for image/status or offroad access), and perhaps are rarely work vehicles. Think lifted 1996 rough Land Cruiser, not a showoff expensive new Ford.
(33 years ago, still in my memory)
It's as if they think it means HTFU and then go to hazing.
I'm guessing "Harden The Fuck Up"
Mostly it meant that people gave you a wide berth, as learner drivers are unpredictable at times. So basically, what the sign intends.
It surprises me to hear that about NZ? As I think of NZ, as our friendlier cousin.
Just goes to show that our experiences are always hyperlocalised, and it's hard to actually make generalisations without actual data.
I've had the same experiences as the parent commenter when learning to drive in Sydney. In general drivers in the bigger cities seem to be very aggressive.
Kiwi here. Our driving is, in general, absolutely atrocious.
I've driven in America, Australia, UK, Canada (also India, but let's exclude that for this purpose). Out of all these, NZ is the worst to drive in. Aggressive drivers (especially Ute/truck drivers). Drivers that shouldn't be on the road because they don't know how to drive (Toyota Aqua drivers!). People that drive totally oblivious to their surroundings. And then you have the selfish ones. They won't stay on the left-most lanes if not passing, they won't move to the left if another vehicle is behind them, and when on a single lane approaching a double lane section (overtaking lane), they will start to speed up so the cars behind them can't overtake. I think it comes down to the 'tall poppy syndrome' that Kiwis are known to have.
Never experienced this kind of driving anywhere else. Other places, the drivers would have the courtesy to move out of the way if other vehicles are behind them.
NEW DRIVER
I'm freaking trying!!
On a related theme - I have found when driving in the North Eastern US, when people put on their turn signal, other drivers will often speed up and close the gap rather than giving them space to merge.
In some other places, a turn signal before a lane change is an ask, to which others respond by creating more of a gap than there originally was. Here, it's not an ask but a statement that you've got enough of a gap already so you're going for it. As such, others don't find a need to react at all, which could mean the gap continues shrinking if it was already shrinking prior.
The signaler needs to have anticipated it and not signaled until this problem doesn't exist, in fact it's scary when someone signals despite this problem because the other driver is led to believe they're unseen. When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap, continuing to do so is a more fuel-efficient way out of the blind spot than using the brake pedal.
Aside: turn signals that automatically flash 3 times with no reasonable way to cancel the remaining flashes when you discover a need to abort a lane change exacerbates the aforementioned scare, so I recommend disabling it.
How do you handle an upcoming left turn (assuming right hand driving) during heavy traffic?
It's not the responsibility of the car changing lanes to optimize the fuel economy of the cars behind, but it is the responsibility of the cars behind to not needlessly impede other drivers from getting where they need to go.
> When there's already a lot of momentum toward closing the gap
Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you? I don't see any reason you'd do this unless you have another free lane to the left and are planning to pass. If you don't then you're just reducing your margins to the next car for no reward, as you'd have to slow down anyway once the gap is "closed".
And anyway, it's more fuel efficient to leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you so that if they slow down, you can just take your foot off the accelerator to match speed rather than braking. And increase speed again slowly when they speed up (again leaving a healthy gap). For anyone driving a hybrid or EV especially much of those losses can be recovered with regenerative braking.
The other thing is that in places where people use turn signals properly, it's customary to signal a few seconds before you turn (where I live the law is to signal at least three seconds before changing lanes). That gives people plenty of time to ease off the accelerator and make space without needing to hit the brakes.
I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I think the more likely explanation is just that this anti-social behavior has been normalized in the North East. And drivers are either oblivious to others around them, or have adopted the outright aggressive attitude that yielding to other drivers makes you a sucker.
To their credit, traffic fatalities do tend to be lower in the North East than the rest of the country on both a per-capita and per-mile-driven basis [1]. But I suspect it has more to do with other factors like lower speed limits than merging behavior. And this is supported by the fact that Massachusetts (and the most of New England) has the highest per-capita accident rate in the country [2].
So not only are you adding to each other's stress levels. You're also driving up insurance prices and contributing to traffic jams with more accidents.
[1] https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/fatality-statistics/deta...
[2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-u-s-states-with-the-...
If I see that someone is actually changing lanes (in terms of lateral position changing within their lane) then of course I would get out of their way, as it would be unsafe not to. But if they're postponing their lane change (despite their signal already being on) because I'm about to be in their way, that's the scenario I'm talking about when I say I'm going to continue on my way rather than lose momentum/fuel: they are waiting for me to not be in their way, they will continue waiting until I'm gone, and they should've waited until I'm gone before signaling (by "should" I simply mean if they want to assimilate into this driving style). The example scenario in my other recent comment will help illustrate this.
> leave a big enough buffer with the car in front of you [...] leaving a healthy gap
I realize that my original comment wasn't clear on this, but the "gap" I'm talking about is between cars in different lanes (again, see the example scenario in my other comment). We can assume no lead car at all.
> I also can't comprehend how if you're "scared" by someone signaling when you are in their blind spot, the best course of action could be to put yourself directly in their path vs giving a little extra space to safely merge.
I won't say it's the best, it's just what I've noticed. But it's not "their path" if they're just hoping to be let in without actually moving. When they start moving, it's a whole different story, and I would get out of there (ideally lane change, but brake if needed). I guess "stealing my attention" would've been a better way to say it than "scare."
I think the safest thing - and the most polite - is when they first start to signal, make a determination if you are able to safely give them space by easing off the gas and maybe lightly tapping the brakes (of course you don't want to do any hard braking because that creates a risk of being rear-ended). And if the answer is yes, then let them merge. If you're traveling at a safe speed, leaving a safe distance to the car in front of you, and assuming they signal about the time the car in front of you passes them, this should be doable more often than not.
If I am in the middle lane (lane 2), and I realize I need to get into the leftmost lane (lane 1) to make a turn, but lane 1 is too full for me to simply move into it without affecting others, then I would have no choice but to cut someone off. I would minimize the effect in two ways: by trying to cut off whoever has left the largest gap in front of them (hunting for a gap that might not be the largest now, but will be the largest when I actually use it), and by assuming as much of the rear-end-collision risk as possible until the lane change is complete. Only once my position is optimized to begin the lane change would I signal, because signaling from a suboptimal position could scare people (or give them an opportunity to fight my ability to change lanes). If I can remain in the optimal position for a couple of blinks without any downside, I absolutely will, but in the very heavy traffic we're discussing, typically the tires hit the lane line between first and second blink -- very much not an "ask."
> Does "momentum towards closing the gap" just mean that you're keeping a higher speed than the car in front of you?
No, I was referring to the gap between the car signaling for a lane change and the car that ends up preventing the lane change, which are in two different lanes. Suppose I'm in lane 2, and a car is in lane 1 a few car-lengths ahead of me. Suppose the car in lane 1 is going slower because they just merged from a left-side entrance ramp. Due to our speed difference, after a moment they're now only 2 car-length ahead of me. Their right turn signal comes on. Now they're 1 car-length ahead of me but they haven't yet changed lanes. Now they're 0 car-lengths ahead of me (i.e., the gap is closed) and cannot change lanes. I did not "let them in" upon seeing their signal, because that would ruin my momentum.
Just to clarify, my original post was more about merging from a faster lane of travel into a slower lane, or where both lanes are traveling at about the same speed.
When merging into a faster lane I agree the slower moving car should wait for a suitable opening before signaling and merging. And there are cases where it is safer to pass a car with its blinker on than to slam on the brakes.
But also in general it's unsafe to be traveling at a large speed differential to the lane next to you. And a lot of times even though people probably could ease up a bit to make space for another car, and it would be safer to do so, they don't.
> Use your rearview mirror, check your blind spots, and use your directional signals when changing lanes. Remember these three steps: (1) look, (2) signal, (3) move
To me this means you don't signal until it's actually safe to merge. E.g. if a car is passing me at high speed, I wouldn't turn on my signal until after they had passed. If I did it before they pass, they might think my intent is to merge in front of them, and slam on their brakes, move into a different lane, etc.
In Japan [2] the process is 1) check rearview and side mirrors, 2) turn on blinker at least 3 seconds before turn, 3) while the blinker is on, do a shoulder check for blind spots 4) merge, 5) flash your hazards 2-3 times to thank the driver who let you merge.
So you're also checking for safety before signaling. Step 5 isn't actually required by the way but it's quite common and a nice touch I think.
These are of course cases where you have the option of moving into a faster lane at your discretion. If your lane is coming to an end, you should probably signal well before the end of the lane (although I would still wait to get up to speed before signaling).
[1] https://www.mass.gov/doc/english-drivers-manual/download Page 95
[2] https://groups.oist.jp/ja/resource-center/things-remember-pr...
It's something I personally do about once in a hundred passes if I think somebody really went out of their way to accommodate me, but even then I realize it's detracting from road safety in several ways, such as reaching over to the often awkwardly placed button, and perhaps confusing other drivers.
But I suppose it's a cultural thing, I've heard that in India it's common to use the horn to notify other drivers of your presence even though there's no imminent danger. Which is something that in most other countries would be seen as obnoxious.
This is precisely the point I'm making, which I perceive as more typical in the northeastern US than other parts of the US where people use the turn signal to beg for an opportunity to be created that doesn't yet exist (at which point declining to create is seen as actively fighting when it's really not).
...you could just miss your turn, instead of cutting someone off?
By slowing down to let somebody in front of you, you prevent them from missing their turn at practically no cost to yourself. But there's this psychological need to be "first" among many drivers, that also causes other irrational behaviors.
It's not uncommon to see drivers keep way too little distance to the cars in front and pass quite aggressively, only for us to end up next to each other at the next red light anyway. All their wasted gas and lowered safety margins got them was arriving at the light 2 seconds earlier.
I'm in Scandinavia, and it feels like surrounding regions have similar conventions.
How are turn signals explained in the driver handbook (or equivalent rulebook) in northeastern US? As far as I know they clearly state that turn signals are about intent, so they should be turned on the moment you decide you need to turn or switch lanes.
Now living in Florida, where turn signals are optional, no Bimmer required, I miss those NYC cabbies dearly. The had strategy, defensive/offensive that were somewhat predictable. Here, it's just pure mayhem.
Near me, it appears to be a decal parents are adding for the benefit of their high schoolers becoming new drivers.
*I've never seen or heard of someone getting a ticket for merely inconsiderate driving, but it's there in the traffic law
1. The cross + heart one for people with hidden disabilities. This is probably top of mind for me because I have a family member who could use some extra understanding due to a condition.
2. The new driver, elderly driver, and deaf driver. The first one is obviously so useful that we've just created dozens of one-off text decals (clearly inferior, as they have to be noticed, read, and interpreted, rather than just recognized). It should be handed to you along with your permit and made compulsory like Japan describes.
As for the elderly one, it would be useful to tip us off to give them more space, and also to inspire us to think of our grandmas when we see such a car making a mistake on the road, instead of defaulting to assuming the driver is a deliberately uncourteous prick as we sometimes do.
(As for the "if people are too old to drive correctly, we should take their licenses away" argument, let's assume it's been made, and that someone has pointed out the tradeoffs of that policy in the real world that we live in.)
Japanese heraldry is particularly captivating because of its apparent influence on corporate logo design of the 1960s. Between mon and traditional Japanese architecture, it’s eye-opening to see parallels between post-war American modernism and millennia of Japanese design.
In the spirit of this article, Cabel Sasser [1] once jokingly referred to U+1F4DB as “tofu on fire,” but eventually learned it is universally understood by Japanese people as a child’s school name tag.
[1]: https://bsky.app/profile/cabel.panic.com/post/3lxusfd6f5k2c
For a non-Japanese example, it wasn’t until I visited Europe that the “fleeing man” universally used for exit signage over there would have meant anything to me. You can drop that icon into something and immediately convey danger, flight to safety, etc.
I simply will not stand for this notjosh erasure!
(potentially the greatest contribution I'll ever make to human culture. not sure how I feel about that, now that I think about it)
Secondly, because they are enforced by social convention, they can be very abstract which helps to reduce stigma. The aforementioned handicapped sign is clearly an abstract silhouette of a person in a wheelchair, which is very, very on the nose compared to a butterfly, clover, or heart. Similarly, the bicolor chevron indicating "new driver" (which I first encountered as a roll-up item in the Katamari Damacy series) is a whole lot less obtrusive than the "dunce cap" worn by driver-education vehicles in the USA (typically, a large sign or signs reading "STUDENT DRIVER" or similar mounted on the roof of the car). American drivers would prickle at having to have something like the "dunce cap" on their vehicles for a year after getting their license, but if it were an obvious but unobtrusive and abstract symbol like the chevron, public support for requiring the symbol on the vehicles of even newly licensed drivers (probably a good idea) would increase.
It’s weird because no one has a phone that looks that way now. Does the younger generation even know that it’s a phone? Same with a lot of software iconography.
Even then, most call icons I've seen don't only have the receiver as part of the icon, but some waves to, to indicate sound (speaker/sound icons often do the same, unless intend to mean 'mute', but that's usually paired with a cross or something). Given that, you could probably get away with anything half-moon-ish shaped, so long as it also has those waves on the upper end of the icon, and it'd still be recognisable as a phone receiver and a 'call' icon (please don't do that though. Just make a normal icon).
Having an icon of smartphone in a smartphone for the call app wouldn't be very helpful. And considering modern usage a smartphone doesn't even a have a strong association with calling.
The symbols on a European car (TBH I've never noticed the difference in a hired American car) don't have this problem. They refer to real things, like lights and fans.
>Don't get me wrong, I like Japan but while these icons look nice, don't most symbols already speak without words?
Yes? No? Whats your point? This is an interesting article about some beautiful cultural symbols. What is so wrong with you that you feel you have to degrade it?
There are limits to both. Obviously it wouldn't be effective to have a bumper sticker that says "This driver has been driving for less than a year, so please use caution around them"; if you lean too much on the power of writing, you make it too hard to quickly identify the meaning. On the other hand, it's not easy to come up with a wide variety of sui generis symbols and still have them be visually distinguishable at a glance, so there's also a limit to how far that approach can get you.
I do wonder whether there is some link between differential reliance on symbols of this sort and the use of alphabetic vs. nonalphabetic writing systems in different languages/cultures. Like, crudely speaking, is it the case that, because you already have to learn so many separate symbols to read Japanese, learning a few more for stuff like "elderly driver" isn't much of an extra load? Or is it the reverse, that because you have to learn so many symbols to read Japanese, they want to make these separate symbols for a small set of important meanings so people can learn them even if they don't know how to read? I'm not sure whether there's a real link here or not but it's interesting to think about.
And so for "laughing a lot" people would write 'wwwwwwww'.
But then 'wwwwwwwwww' looks not unlike grass.
So now to say they're laughing a lot, they're using the real kanji for grass.
We went from 'w', a romanji used as a shortcut for a japanese word, to a kanji because, visually, many 'wwwwwwww' looked somehow like grass.
It's fascinating how in Japan the approach feels more visual. I mean: we may be doing similar things with our "romanji" (roman characters, as japanese calls them) but it's less common.
Speech / ideas / words: it's really something else.
They used a pictogram to convey a kanji pun (chō refers to butterfly (蝶) as well as part of the word chõkaku (聴覚), sense of hearing).
How dumb; at least the butterfly wings sort of look like ears a little bit.
Train station melody chimes are another great example — they differ by station and line, so locals unconsciously recognize which station they're at by sound alone, without reading anything.
There are countless other forms of "reading the air" throughout Japanese daily life. I'd genuinely recommend visiting Japan once to experience it firsthand.
Not one of the symbols can possibly be understood as to its intended meaning without learning what the symbol represents - that is to say, simply by looking at any of them in no way whatsoever suggests, hints, or shows their meaning in the appropriate context.
I don't think they meant that the symbols should be universally understood without need for explanation. That would be accomplished separately through some sort of public education campaign. In the case of the "help mark", they actually explain what it means in multiple languages in a big sign right above the priority seating [1].
All language has to be learned