An item in the January 2017 Pedal Update urged anyone hurt by bollards to sue the relevant council, and particularly ACC. This created ‘disappointment’ at ACC. Our response to their email expressing this can be found here. It points out that few (if any) bollards installed in the last 20 years have met the standards ACC is legally obliged to comply with.
ACC said it’s going to undertake an audit of Park Lands paths soon (its third so far). So to help them out, show us a bollard located on an ACC path that complies with the Australian Guide to Road Design Part 6A: Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths (“GRD6A”), and win a Haigh’s chocolate frog – Midi size! (125g).
GRD6A actually says not to install bollards unless a proven car access problem exists, so we’ll ignore this clause to give you a fighting chance. Other conditions: we need a pic and a rough description of the location emailed to chair@bisa.asn.au before the April Pedal Update is drafted (17 April).
The offer is limited to three frogs, in case there is actually a compliant bollard out there!
Also send your most-hated bollards in any council area and a) if we don’t find a compliant bollard in ACC, we’ll give the chocs to the bollards the Committee thinks are the worst; and b) we’ll forward these to the relevant authority (and then start hassling them).
As a final note, Queensland’s Transport and Main Roads does not support the use of bollards for either of the purposes GRD6A would (reluctantly) allow them i.e. reducing cyclist speed and limiting vehicle access. Its Supplement to GRD6A is something that, currently, we can only salivate over.
GRD6A guideline summary