Xplora wrote:An off road, self powered wheelchair is available for free at Mt. Beauty information centre for use on some tracks on the Bogong High Plains. This may be suitable in some areas of NSW parks.
Moondog55 wrote:I have had an ongoing rant about toilets in Victorian national parks being sited "out of sight" and being unsuited to persons with mobility issues and with most such toilets being totally unsuitable for wheelchair access
GregG wrote:Hello Matt
This is something of a vexed question isnt it? Balancing equitable access against maintaining the wilderness experience.
A few years back I encountered a fellow on an all-terrain Segway on a track near Newnes. He rather bashfully told me that he came to that area because he had been warned-off other National Parks, rangers being a bit more thin on the ground around Newnes at that time. He said that he used to be a keen bushwalker but ill health had forced him to look at other means of getting around and that the Segway was a good option apart from the limited range. The fat low-pressure tyres looked like they would have a low impact on the ground and I thought there were obvious benefits to him and not much of a problem for nature and other walkers. Other people I was with were not so convinced though.
Regards
Greg
crollsurf wrote:I always thought a wheelbarrow with a seat installed would a great idea, along with a few volunteers to push and help out. Unfortunately the Legal profession would see it as a litigation dream come true. Something like that may work in NZ but can't seeing it getting off the ground here.
I fully support the idea of bringing the bush to wheelchair bound people. Not suggesting a multi-day track into the wilderness, just a track that resembles a bushwalk rather than the current options of a carpark and tourist lookout.
Moondog55 wrote:It's not just wheelchair bound people tho, there are many others who simply can't move without some sort of artificial assistance, so in toilets something as cheap and simple as handholds are needed.
Signage could be modified to give time estimations for different mobility groups too, assuming graded paths
rcaffin wrote:Ah, I see.
Run a bulldozer through anything that gets in the way.
Yeah, right, just what we need for conservation and preservation.
As soon as you start to permit this sort of thing, it will go both feral and commercial. Electric quad bikes will be next. Not on my watch thank you.
Cheers
Roger
tastrax wrote:Personally I think you will get the best response by taking people with issues to existing tracks and seeing what issues are presented and what solutions they would be looking for to enhance their experiences. I suspect there will be a very wide range of issues from surface treatments, grades, widths, cross-fall, vegetation issues, handrail or other aid requirements etc. Also remember that the vast majority of tracks, in my experience, were never designed, they are often just legacies of early walkers and where they wanted to go. Most will never have been designed with these visitors in mind, and even when they are, the limits of grades and rest areas are often pushed to the extreme even in urban environments, let alone facilities (as mentioned by others).
I think any multi day track would need to be designed with specific cases in mind. The daily distances travelled by someone with a mobility issue or a double amputee might be very different to someone in a self powered wheelchair versus an assisted wheelchair (if allowed). All should have the opportunity but a well designed experience will be a lot better than something cobbled together out of an existing legacy track (in my view). It doesn't have to be bland, it can still push the boundaries in an acceptable way, just the same as any track network catering to mixed needs.
Others will chose to have a crack at existing tracks or experiences and push themselves to the limit, albeit with a well organised team behind them!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl1NNodBa7U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53tG2uSSl84
wildwalks wrote:Yeah okay, let's be clear no one I have heard on this topic is walking about pulling out the bulldozer. Well, not more than parks already do, these fire trails don't build themselves after all.
I am not a fan of the thin edge of the wedge argument when we are talking about policy development -- part of the point of developing policies to manage such risks.
The metal bridges over Spring River (PDT) and Milford Creek (SCT) and the new stretches of raised walkway in places like Buoy Creek flats - not wheelchair friendly but massively overenginered for where they are and dealing with relatively minor issues for walkers (especially Milford Creek). They do it because it's easy and makes it looks like they're dong something, while the really big issues (such as erosion on the eastern side of the Ironbounds or, as you pointed out, weed and feral control) go untouched.davidmorr wrote:I think about things like a stainless steel and polished timber serpentine bridge at Polblue to replace an existing bridge. Tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to construct something totally out of place in a bush setting. Kudos for someone there. And while the bridge is wheelchair friendly, no wheelchair could ever get there. Meanwhile the scotch broom runs rampant.
wildwalks wrote:Howdy
I (and other great organisations) are working with NSW NPWS ...... etc
GregG wrote: I am just wondering, for the sake of clarity, who you are representing and who the other great organisations are, and on what forum, committee or body?
davidmorr wrote:It is all very well saying that no-one is going to get out the bulldozer. That might be the case now, or with the people you are talking to. But can it be assumed that state will last forever?
Return to Bushwalking Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests