Table of Contents
“Dog whistlers” is the latest insult to be lobbed at any who dares question the government. We have anti-vaxxers, far-right supremacists, racists, and conspiracy theorists. Now dog whistlers. Debate on any topic is dismissed by this abysmal Labour Government: we are not to question, but simply to obey. It is not possible to hold a reasoned discussion about any policy or promise.
The derogatory term is currently being used in regard to the use of bilingual road signage. To query this under any metric is considered not only dog whistling but racist dog whistling.
The Government is doubling down on its commitment to bilingual road signs, as its ministers accuse National of “dog whistle” politics for campaigning against the new designs.
National Party transport spokesperson Simeon Brown last week criticised NZTA after it started consultation for a new range of bilingual road signs.
Signs need to be clear. We all speak English, and they should be in English,” he said, adding that he only supported place name signs being bilingual. The party is now trying to downplay his comments.
Prime Minster Chris Hipkins and Associate Transport Minister Kiritapu Allan have both labelled Brown’s concerns a “dog whistle”.
stuff.co.nz/national/politics/132176328/kiri-allan-calls-out-national-for-dog-whistle-doubles-down-on-bilingual-signs
But speaking this morning on Newshub’s AM, the prime minister was asked who he thought the opposition was dog whistling to. He wouldn’t go so far as to say National was appealing to “racists”, but suggested there was a “racist underbelly” that National was targeting.
PM: National appealing to a ‘racist underbelly’ with comments on bilingual road signs | May 30 2023 | The Spinoff
OK – so a slightly watered-down version – a racist underbelly. But still racist. Targeted by the National Party. Of course.
Bilingual road signage is expensive. At a time when the Ministry of Pot Holes is ramping up its success rate (the only ministry to do so) by achieving maximum vehicle damage and driver distress set against minimum roading infrastructure expenditure, they choose to replace signage with bilingual signs.
Is there science that considers the effects of bilingual signage on drivers and driver performance? Yes.
One study, by S L Jamson, F N Tate and A H Jamson, from the Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds, entitled Evaluating the Effects of Bilingual Traffic Signs on Driver Performance and Safety, is a lengthy report that includes VMS signage (Variable Message Signage, electronics based: partly outside the scope of this commentary, which is limited to static bilingual signage such as is now proposed for NZ).
The report, section 1.3, states:
There has been little work carried out which has attempted to evaluate if drivers are able to glean the appropriate information from bilingual signs, without there being a degradation in their driving performance. […] Research on static signs has confirmed increased reading times – by up to 15% – compared to their monolingual counterparts (Rutley 1972, Lesage 1978, Anttila et al. 2000). This is despite the fact that drivers need only half the information presented in order to glean the appropriate message. (Emphasis added). An increase in reading time would logically be accompanied by a decrease in the amount of visual attention paid to the road. Whether this leads to an increase in accident risk depends on the context of the driving situation (e.g. cars ahead, relative speed, proximity of cars in the adjacent lane). When considering the visual distraction of in-car systems, guidelines exist as to ‘how much’ distraction is acceptable (e.g., ISO 1997, Zwahlen et al 1998). However, there is no baseline against which we can evaluate the level of visual distraction posed by road signs. As a result, researchers and policy makers have simply sought to minimise the reading time. […]
There are a number of fundamental questions to be addressed in order to evaluate and optimise bilingual sign configuration. First, how do drivers respond to bilingual signs and does this have implications for traffic safety? […]
Dog whistling with a racist underbelly?
[…]“The major findings of this study were as follows: (1) Bilingual signs required more reading time than unilingual signs (emphasis added); (2) The dominant language should be located either at the “TOP” of a “TOP-BOTTOM” sign message configuration, or at the “LEFT” of a “LEFT-RIGHT” configuration; (3) Neither the “TOP-BOTTOM” nor the “LEFT-RIGHT” sign message configuration was found to be significantly better than the other; (4) Clear demarcation of the two languages (for example, by a line) significantly improved sign performance, particularly for unilingual subjects; and (5) Use of “pivot” words (a word common to both languages) resulted in poorer sign performance than corresponding fully-translated signs (emphasis added).
DESIGN AND COMPREHENSION OF BILINGUAL TRAFFIC SIGNS (trb.org)
Both Labour and National would do well to investigate the use of bilingual signage – it is not simply a matter of adding language and swanky new design. Bilingual signage can and does work but, in the way it is being promoted, it is more than a cultural nicety, hence the “racist underbelly” invective. It is also about road safety, and at a time when our visual attention is diverted to dodging and dealing with pot holes, do we need yet another driver distraction?
Have bilingual signs been discussed in terms of driver information comprehension and road safety, or has the cultural issue automatically trumped any other? And, given research from other jurisdictions, where does an initiative that may compromise road safety fit in the government’s programme Road to Zero?
We have a vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on New Zealand roads. A vision where everyone, whether they’re walking, cycling, driving, motorcycling or taking public transport, can get to where they’re going safely. It might sound impossible, but Aotearoa has a plan to get there. It’s called Road to Zero.
Road to Zero – NZ’s road safety strategy – All updates | Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (nzta.govt.nz)
Let’s see how this all works out, but we can be assured that to question the initiative on any but cultural grounds, makes us dog-whistlers with racist underbellies.
