On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 15:24:28 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

In uk.d-i-y, Steve Walker wrote:
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:19:34 +0100 (BST), Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:49:26 +0100, Mike Barnes wrote:

That would not follow the convention, as we already have a black
bicycle on a white background in a red circle to prohibit cycles and a
similar sign whith a car and motorbike to prohibit motor vehicles.
Therefore prohibiting pedestrians (or for that matter horses or
anything else) should automatically follow the same convention.

Then perhaps you can explain why "no left turn", "no right turn", and
"no u turn" *do* feature a diagonal bar. Designed to confuse?

There is a need to differentate between the orders to "Turn Right" or "No
Right Turn".

Although an order to turn right would be a white arrow on a blue circular
sign.

Quite. If the bar is needed for "no right turn", it's needed for "no
cycling". If it's not needed for "no cycling", it's not needed for "no
right turn" either.

Except there is a difference, a no cycling sign is equivalent to a no-entry
sign for cycles, similarly for a no motor vehicles or no pedestrians sign.
A no right turn sign is not a form of no-entry sign, as it may be perfectly
permissible for traffic approaching from the opposite direction to turn
left into the same road, similarly for a no u-turns. Not having a bar gives
an indication of prohibition of entry, whereas the ones with bars are a
prohibition of a particular manouvre.

SteveW