What is really important is the value that is provided to the city and end users - you get up to deliver information to your commuters in real time. This is hard/impossible to do if you need to deploy LCD signs that require massive roadworks to connect to power.

The fact that they don't break down is just a further testament to e-paper's versatility - we'll see more and more applications using e-paper in digital signage. There's a lot of examples what our customers are building on our blog, like smart citizen information (https://www.visionect.com/blog/soofa-sign-reinventing-citysc...) or trucks equipped with digital signs (https://www.visionect.com/blog/electronic-paper-truck-displa...).

Couple of questions. How are they powered (solar?). If someone were to get a ticket and protest that the sign changed after they had parked, what process is in place to allow them to review the content record for that sign?

They are powered with solar. The technology doesn't change the other problem - they changed the signs previously by updating the content manually (replacing the plates). I'm guessing they have this sorted out.

Talking about value, what is the price difference between a regular road sign and a e-paper version?

How many employees could be hired changing the physical road signs given the price difference?

When it comes to deploying outdoor signs the price of a sign is the least of your worries when it comes to TCO. It's more about how much does it cost to deploy and how much does it cost to manage the signs. Digital signs also give you the ability to update information more often.

Given the positive feedback from the end customer and Mercury Innovation (http://www.mercuryinnovation.com.au/) that took our platform and built the traffic sign (we're not the ones selling the end product) I'd say that TCO is in favor of e-paper traffic signs.

Disclaimer: I work for Visionect

Since you work for Visionect and appear to be astroturfing on Hacker News, it would be nice to have a second opinion.

I haven't seen the signs used in Sydney for anything except clearways, as pictured in the article. The contrast isn't great but you don't really need high-vis for no-stopping-or-we-tow-you signs.

Judging by their posts on this page, the company that manufactures the signs is clearly hooked up to an IV drip of their own koolaid. Still, for this particular application (temporary parking restrictions) e-paper is much better than the previous solution, which was to print plastic inserts and drive around the city sliding them into tracks on the signs.

The site was up a few minutes ago, I bet somebody thought they were getting DDoS'ed and took it down.

Also normal road signs use retro reflective spheres mixed into the paint to increase brightness at night, not sure if those can be carried over to e-ink displays?

Couldn't read the article (can't access) but I guess if it was dangerous in any way it would not been used for trafic regulation for 4 years, no ?

Hi, the article is back up. No worries, you're right, the tech is perfectly safe for the road - in traffic signs and in many other applications (www.visionect.com/blog/electronic-paper-truck-displays). So many exciting projects yet to come!

Do you (also) work for visionect?

From the page it seems that they have some kind of ilumination when it gets dark, now on foggy or rainy conditions it could be an issue