Blinkered Vision - Barricades in Hyde Park

Thirty years ago, it was common practice to use barriers and chicanes to control access to and use of footpaths and shared paths. The world has, however, moved on since then, with increased recognition of the need to provide access for all - but not, it seems, in the City of Vincent.

Despite Vincent's much-vaunted bikeplan and its consistent commitment to disability access, it seems there is a lack of recognition of what universal access and universal design really mean.

Last week, barriers were erected on most of the paths in Hyde Park leading from Vincent Street, presumably in response to complaints about some cyclists riding irresponsibly, especially down the hill from Vincent Street. So, to 'control' a few rogue cyclists, the City of Vincent has created impediments and hazards for all park users. 

I wonder if anyone has considered, for example, how these paths are supposed to function at times of peak usage, such as the Hyde Park Fair.

The so-called chicanes require 90-degree turns by cyclists and pedestrians alike - but almost certainly not by the problem cyclists, who will simply ride off the path and by-pass the obstructions. Indeed, almost all cyclists will find it easier to go off on the grass than to try to negotiate the obstructions that have been placed in their path. There is evidence (to the left of the picture above and in the wear on the grass to the left of the picture below) that this already happening.

For people with mobility impairments, especially those using wheelchairs or gophers, the necessary manoeuvres are difficult if not impossible. People with mobility impairments are unable to avoid the chicanes by going around them, as the surface adjacent to the path is unsuitable for their needs. These chicanes may well be in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act, as there is no convenient alternative access for people with disabilities.

Just to make things even more difficult (especially for people with vision impairments), three of the four 'chicanes' have the entry on the right of the path (rather conflicting with the legal requirement for cyclists (and the general expectation for pedestrians) to keep left on paths - but one has the entry on the left.

For children on small bicycles, often with trainer wheels, the degree of manoeuvrability required may well be beyond their capabilities - and there is a very real danger of their running straight into one of the barriers, including the horizontal bar that is about at head height for them.

For 'average' cyclists, the barriers will require them to dismount to avoid falling in making two very low speed 90-degree turns one after the other.

The 'chicanes' are even more of a hazard at night.

One of the four (the one on the diagonal path from Norfolk Street down to the eastern lake) has no lighting within 50 metres and is virtually impossible to see.

Two of the others have lights immediately adjacent - which might seem like a good idea but means that there is no light reflecting off the signage, which should be the most visible part of the barrier. These barriers are easy not to see - paradoxically because the area they are in is well lit but little of this light reflects off the structures themselves.

The fourth, on the path directly down from Norfolk Street, does have lights in both directions from the barriers, but even so, visibility is not very good.

Where's the justification?

The only 'justification' for the barriers mentioned in the City of Vincent Council Minutes is that "Chicanes have recently been used by the City of Perth on the Mount Street pedestrian overpass to great effect." No mention of what the effect has been, but, in any case, the installation and situation are entirely different. The barriers on the Mount Street bridge are on a curve and are set several metres apart (not just over one metre as in Hyde Park) so there is a reasonably straight through path that can be used at moderate speed when no other users are present. In addition, the railings of the bridge prevent users from by-passing the barriers. 

I note also that:

(a) The only reported consultation on this matter has been with the Heritage Council (from which no response was received), not with the community; 

(b) The original proposal was to have these devices at four of the entries to the park, not within the park and that the most recent report to Council (25th March, 2014) makes no mention of the locations having been changed (other than a simple plan showing intended locations, with no indication that these were not the original ones); and

(c) Of the actual locations where these devices have been installed, only one is on a path previously agreed by Council on 3rd December, 2013.