Flowers outside Mawson BWS in honour of the four-year-old boy who was killed on Sunday. Photo: James Coleman.
Looking at the flowers at the site where four-year-old Osal Mayur Pokhrel was killed on Sunday, I couldn’t help but notice the metal bollards outside Mawson BWS.
There they were, standing upright, having done precisely nothing to prevent a tragedy.
It’s unclear what happened before a blue Hyundai i30 drove into the liquor store on 18 January – but a four-year-old boy walking on the path was hit in the process.
He was rushed to hospital in a critical condition, but died a short time later.
No charges have been laid and the ACT Road Policing’s Major Collision Team is preparing a report for the coroner.
But a Bhutanese couple, here in Australia on a Temporary Residence visa, have been robbed of their child.
It’s horrific, and seeing the flowers outside the BWS stops you in your tracks. There but for the grace of God … But apparently not bollards.
Looking at the building, the metal poles do seem strategically placed – one on each of the corners, clearly protecting against a vehicle causing structural damage and bringing the whole building down.
But why couldn’t the bollards be placed closer to the kerb, and shield pedestrians as much as they do the building?
Maybe because that requires a bit of a rewrite of the design standards.
The scene of Sunday’s accident. Photo: Reddit.
Part 6 of the Guide for Road Design, published by AusRoads (the combined transport agencies of the Australian and New Zealand governments), covers “roadside design, safety and barriers”. It classifies bollards such as the ones outside the Mawson BWS as “permanent crashworthy bollards”.
These, governed by Australian and New Zealand Standard 3845.1:2015, “can be used … to restrict vehicles from entering a pedestrian area, to shield areas with high pedestrian activity such as shopping strips, roadside dining areas, tram stops, bus stops, and to shield a hazard and to protect the occupants of a vehicle in areas where the operating speed is 50 km/h or less”.
Around locations such as Mawson Woollies, for example.
However, there are no specific requirements for location or spacing, except that: “The installation designer should account for the presence of pedestrians and diners”.
That is, unless there is an “evidence-based threat of attack”. This would require “security bollards” – and these do come with design specifications that may have prevented Sunday’s tragedy.
“Security bollards are the final feature to stop hostile vehicles progressing into a controlled area,” the guide document reads.
“While permanent bollards are energy absorbing and slow vehicles, security bollards are structurally designed to arrest vehicles.”
Examples of security bollards. Photo: AusRoads, Guide to Road Design.
This not only means they must comply with “international standards IWA14-1 and IWA14.2 and British standard PAS68”, but also that they must be installed no more than 1200 mm apart and no less than 500 mm high.
For reference, a Hyundai i30 hatchback (the vehicle involved in Sunday’s incident) measures about 1775 mm wide. Enough for security bollards to stop an errant one in its tracks.
In the wake of Sunday’s incident, is it time we increase requirements for bollards in public spaces, like around shopping centre entrances and walkways? Should bollards, such as those at Mawson, be moved closer to the edge of the road?
Surely the protection of people trumps the protection of a building.
The Australia Bhutan Association of Canberra has established a GoFundMe to support the family of Osal Mayur Pokhrel. Donations can be made through GoFundMe.
