A little of the history of the UK’s road signs.

Looking at the UK’s National Archive I was struck with the fact that the situation there could have been very different, were it not for the intervention of one or two decisive individuals...

“...it has long been my belief that we would do best to submit all our proposed traffic signs to a consultant industrial artist, who is a expert on lettering. I know it can be argued that, having adopted an alphabet, all the rest is merely routine. I know too that a special relationship has been built up between the Ministry and the sign manufacturers, which introduction of a third party in the form of a consultant would complicate. Nevertheless it is remarkable what a good designer can do to the appearance of simple things, as any attentive reader to the productions of the Council of Industrial Design must know. A decision to appoint a consultant of this kind would not be popular in the Department, but outside it would, I believe, be well received.” (Allen, National Archives, 1957)

It appears, unfortunately, there was no such champion of design in Ireland, but here I’ll outline the genesis of the UK solution.

Competition and opposition in the UK

Kinneir and Calvert were not unopposed in creating their design solution. Noted calligrapher David Kindersley created an alternative alphabet (Shaw 1989), which he claimed was more effective and used less space, allowing smaller signs to be used.
Kindersley felt strongly that the large signs proposed by Kinneir were something of a blight on the landscape. It would seem also that there was something of a struggle here between modernism, with Kinneir’s type being seen as part of a Swiss modernist movement, and a more traditional British ‘arts & crafts’ movement. (Kindersley was an apprentice to the typographer and stone cutter Eric Gill and would have seen his craft as very much in the tradition of that movement).
From the perspective of Ireland’s road signs it’s interesting to note that Kindersley’s alphabet was exclusively uppercase. (One could perhaps argue that if there was to be use of an uppercase alphabet, this intentionally designed uppercase version should have been considered – but of course I’m not advocating that!.)

‘The race is not always to the swift’

While on the face of it the decision to use Kinneir’s Transport type rather than MOT Serif would seem puzzling in terms of the research, I would observe that the very modernism and style of Kinneir’s overall sign design (and the very use of space abhorred by Kindersley) was recognised as progressive and was desired by the committee for their aesthetic quality (and perhaps the modernity they conveyed, or what we’d now label ‘brand values’). It’s also worth noting that each of these individuals was capable of creating an excellent solution, and it can ultimately be difficult to separate the solutions of two accomplished professional designers on grounds other than preference.


Above: The heavy letter form designed for use on white backgrounds.
Looking at the weights of the Transport type I believe the bolder weight (above), designed for use in black on white on local routes, is too heavy in weight. I was surprised to find that Kinneir, in retrospect, drew the same conclusion...

“In this urban context the letter forms would benefit from being more tightly spaced and a little less heavy.” (Kinneir 1984)

As is often the case, it would appear that the author of the work was more questioning than his followers. As one of the recognisable designs of our times, and part of ‘brand Britain’ Transport has succeeded. It would, in retrospect, be difficult to imagine the landscape peppered with the traditional looking alphabet created by Kindersley.

An observation on Transport as ‘an institution’

At the outset of my design journey I noted that some designers were almost affronted at the idea that one could question the effectiveness of Transport, and at the time I pointed out my view that as designers we should seek to continually improve on everything (while still holding particular designs in our affections). The Road Research Laboratory tests indicate to me, if nothing else, that Transport is not a sacred cow, but a strong design solution which has proven itself over time. Often, in the design process, we find many solutions to a particular problem and we are faced with a choice, or we abdicate responsibility to the client’s decision. The choice made we move on and the chosen solution becomes a new reality. When this is accepted over time, it can seem in hindsight that the alternative designs were not equally strong solutions. I would argue that often, were one of these chosen as the route, it would become its own reality and time would taint the memories of the other designs suitability.
Put another way, the consensus of opinion about Transport galvanised my resolve to treat it fairly, but examine its effectiveness rigorously. At all times I was interested in use in the dual-language context, for which Britain’s solution was not designed, but only later adapted.

Not just a design, a design system

Ole Lund (Lund, 2003, p121) points out that the systematic nature of Kinneir’s approach was emblematic at a critical point in the evolution of the role of designer (from craftsman designing artefacts, to designer of a system). Lund quotes The Sunday Times 1964...

“Kinneir sees himself primarily as a design ‘systemiser’, and it is perhaps his ability at taking organisational and financial considerations into account that so endears him to the official mind.”

This, I would argue, has also endeared Kinneir and Transport to a generation of designers educated to a love of systemisation, from corporate design schemes to public information projects. It is conceivable that design history will rediscover Kindersley as a master craftsman, while with Kinneir will remain a ‘prototype’ graphic designer with a foot in the camps of both the client world and the craft world.

Tags: Design, History, Kinneir, Kindersley, Typographic design