Cul-de-sacs need a sign to indicate permeability

So John Dales thinks the humble ‘keep left’ arrow is too widespread and visually intrusive (ibid).

Surely the first requirement for signs is that they should be conspicuous or visible, and not just in good weather and good light. The second requirement is that they should be comprehensible, to visitors as well as locals. On these counts, the keep left arrow has been doing its job well for decades. Indeed, it could be considered a design classic, along with (nearly all) the other signs in the system. I have seen some particularly stylish examples in Kensington.

If John wants to improve a sign, may I point him towards the T (cul-de-sac) sign? While it advises of a no-through-road for vehicles, it can be read as implying a cul-de-sac for all, including pedestrians. But numerous city streets and suburban roads that are dead-ends for vehicles have connecting footways and paths (aka snickets, ginnels, etc.) that make through routes for pedestrians. Some of these are also physically suitable and legally available for cyclists (and more could be made so, but that’s another story). We need a sign that conveys this information, preferably in symbols without words.

Such a sign would help in promoting the active travel modes, as discussed in your feature on Living Streets in the same issue.