Last week Civis considered plans by Transport Minister Simeon Brown to emphasise highway building and relegate cycleways. Mr Brown also favours higher speed limits.
This seemed appalling to progressives and common sense to others. Although Civis questions Mr Brown’s policy, some points are reasonable and should not be automatically dismissed.
Again, reactions are polarised. The cultural establishment, without hesitation, is all in favour. Another sector is immediately opposed.
Civis supports bilingual signs, while also acknowledging a potential down side. Again, there should be more to the matter than simply gut responses.
Waka Kotahi planned gradually to install new signs as the present ones required replacement. Māori is an official language and unique to New Zealand. Its use should be encouraged. We all develop at least some familiarity by osmosis.
Bilingual road signs have been used for decades overseas without, it appears, significant problems, including in Wales, Canada and parts of Europe.
Of the 94 types of signs slated to be changed here, fundamental safety instructions such as "stop" and "give way" would remain the same. Kura, alongside "school", is already in place without problems.
Nevertheless, the basics of signs should be considered. Their purpose to instruct, direct and inform is achieved without te reo. Simplicity and clarity are key principles for road signs.
Language acknowledgement and promotion and cultural benefit adds an extra but worthwhile weight for signs to carry.
Bilingual road signs have improved road safety in some parts of Europe by guiding those fluent in the second but not the primary language. Japan has incorporated English into warning and regulatory signs after the increasing number of foreigners involved in traffic crashes.
It is disingenuous, though, to claim those specific benefits in Aotearoa. These days, Māori readers who are not conversant in basic English are harder to find than kākāpō.
Waka Kotahi draws a long bow when its memo on "the likely benefits of bilingual signs" claims safety could be enhanced because: "Warnings given in an indigenous language are likely to garner greater attention and subsequently impart greater influence on behaviour among indigenous people."
Its accompanying 39-page research note into overseas research experience shows the matter is not entirely evident. Research with bilingual signs found longer comprehension time, greater visual stimuli and smaller following distances "indicating distraction and real-world decrements in safety".
Obviously, signs of any sort cannot be complex, long or too large. They have been associated with "less safe and driving behaviour that is more aggressive, such as faster acceleration manoeuvres" as drivers get "overwhelmed".
RNZ reporter Phil Pennington has delved into this research, noting comprehension time is greatest for those most fluent in both languages, as they tended to read both and compare them, in the fraction of a second they get as they drive past.
What is crucial, and counterbalancing the legitimate concerns, is the lack of evidence that death and serious injury become more frequent. It is possible to support bilingual signs while acknowledging the potential drawbacks.
Answers are so often less clear-cut than our predispositions dictate.
