E petition surfacing redressing

[reohn2]

Who's going to pay for decent road repairs/renewals? Also, HOW is it going to be paid for?

Much of the problem seems to come from poor reinstatement where the road has been dug up. What it needs is a register of who did what work then call them back to fix it when the repair starts to break up. Plus a bond to cover those who go out of business first. General wear and tear should be paid for by those who cause it. Perhaps VED based on axle weight as well as emissions?

My thoughts exactly,why the people who dig up the roads aren't made to reinstate them to the standard before is frankly unbelievable.
Any bad work should only need a phone call on threat of penalties for shoddy work,similarly so with contracted pothole repairs.It seems work is done to a cheap price and not to a high standard.
I've long thought the VED system fails and is biased toward heavier vehicles.

[pete75]

http://www.highwaysmaintenance.com/SDtext.htm
A fascinating and extensive web page on the tech side of road maintenance (that somebody linked to on the blog that Mark1978 linked to).

I didn't appreciate that surface dressing was not common practice until 30 years ago.

They were certainly doing it around here 50 years ago.

[pete75]

Who's going to pay for decent road repairs/renewals? Also, HOW is it going to be paid for?

Much of the problem seems to come from poor reinstatement where the road has been dug up. What it needs is a register of who did what work then call them back to fix it when the repair starts to break up. Plus a bond to cover those who go out of business first. General wear and tear should be paid for by those who cause it. Perhaps VED based on axle weight as well as emissions?

My thoughts exactly,why the people who dig up the roads aren't made to reinstate them to the standard before is frankly unbelievable.
Any bad work should only need a phone call on threat of penalties for shoddy work,similarly so with contracted pothole repairs.It seems work is done to a cheap price and not to a high standard.
I've long thought the VED system fails and is biased toward heavier vehicles.

Most of the weight related damage to road surfaces is done by HGV's and their road tax is based on axle loading.

Not only should those who dig up the roads be made to reinstate them as they were before but they should also be charged a rental fee for each day they "occupy" the road.

As for Mick's question the tax payer is going to have to pay to put the roads in order sooner or later and the later it is the greater the cost. Much of what is done in this country by local authorities seems to be done as cheaply as possible and badly done by the standards of most western European nations. Personally I'd rather pay a bit more and get decent quality.

[Mark1978]

I've often advocated the daily rental charge part. Also it should be the rule that the reinstatement should always be the width of the entire lane not patches or lines.

[reohn2]

Most of the weight related damage to road surfaces is done by HGV's and their road tax is based on axle loading.

I agree most but not all,and there are roads in my neck of the woods which aren't or rarely used by HGV's that non HGV's have been responsible for 'chewing' up and or deforming.Two tonne of vehicle towing two tonne of trailer can have an adverse effect on some roads.

Not only should those who dig up the roads be made to reinstate them as they were before but they should also be charged a rental fee for each day they "occupy" the road.

That seems reasonable to me.

As for Mick's question the tax payer is going to have to pay to put the roads in order sooner or later and the later it is the greater the cost.

That's politricks for you

Much of what is done in this country by local authorities seems to be done as cheaply as possible and badly done by the standards of most western European nations.

I agree,standards seem to be plummeting,and as I say ,that's politricks for you.

Personally I'd rather pay a bit more and get decent quality.

I'd like to see a job done well once rather than done badly then needing doing again in short order.
There's a 1/2mile stretch of road near where I live that was resurfaced about five years ago,it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the tarmac used was of poor quality.
It has had to be patched,again,and again,poorly I might add,and was resurfaced again this year though that was long over due.It sees very little HGV use
Thankfully it seems to have been done properly this time and should last.

I see this sort of thing time and again here in the NW where most of my cycling and driving is done.
The waste is appalling and the people in charge of it should be sacked,but hey ho,that's politricks for you .
No one seems to think beyond the end of the next financial term or the next election,it's a cynical and stupid and wasteful way to run a country IMHO.

[661-Pete]

Last week I was turned back from my usual once-a-week commute along a narrow country lane, by a well-meaning yellow-jacketed official who warned me that I could go on, but it would be "at my own risk" (the alternative was a five-mile stretch of busy main road - which to my mind entails more 'risk' to the cyclist...). Anyway once I elicited from him that "the whole road surface was being taken up", I deferred to his suggestion and took the main road.

I shan't be going back that way until early next month, but it will be interesting to see what they actually did to this, admittedly not very heavily-used, lane. Was it just a surface-dressing job, as described in this thread, or a proper re-making of the road? I should explain that the lane did indeed have a few bumps in it, but nothing I would describe as a serious pothole (there are potholes on my commute, but they are in different places not covered by this closure).

I think we have here yet another case of unnecessary window-dressing and bureaucrats' box-ticking...

[gaz]

I think it was early May when I was turned around at the "Road Closed" sign by the lady from the council's contractors. Fair enough too, they've got a job to do and don't need me trying to cycle through the middle of it.

She explained that a number of cyclists had ignored signs and advice over the last few days, adding that she was sure that the various black, noxious, sticky substances involved would be very hard to remove and possibly quite damaging to carbon fibre. How much of that was true and how much was flannel I don't know.

Whilst I don't know the name of the road mending process they were using it was much better than the tar and chippings method described by the OP.

[Cunobelin]

Signed.... should it not be in an area that is more relevant ie on the road?

Seems to me that on the road is an appropriate place to put a road surface dressing....

[pete75]

I think it was early May when I was turned around at the "Road Closed" sign by the lady from the council's contractors. Fair enough too, they've got a job to do and don't need me trying to cycle through the middle of it.

She explained that a number of cyclists had ignored signs and advice over the last few days, adding that she was sure that the various black, noxious, sticky substances involved would be very hard to remove and possibly quite damaging to carbon fibre. How much of that was true and how much was flannel I don't know.

Whilst I don't know the name of the road mending process they were using it was much better than the tar and chippings method described by the OP.

The thing is road closed signs usually lie. Unless a bridge has been taken out it's possible to get through. Last year one of the roads to our village had road closed signs but it wasn't closed at all other than the signs and some plastic barriers all easily removed. The year before similar signs and barriers were put up on the fen road in the next village at harvest. I don't think the tractor drivers carting corn even bothered to remove the signs and barriers they just drove over them.

[[XAP]Bob]

Signed.... should it not be in an area that is more relevant ie on the road?

Seems to me that on the road is an appropriate place to put a road surface dressing....

I'd suggest otherwise - back to the idiots who suggested it maybe. But keep it off the roads, it's potentially lethal stuff...

[661-Pete]

The thing is road closed signs usually lie. Unless a bridge has been taken out it's possible to get through. Last year one of the roads to our village had road closed signs but it wasn't closed at all other than the signs and some plastic barriers all easily removed. The year before similar signs and barriers were put up on the fen road in the next village at harvest. I don't think the tractor drivers carting corn even bothered to remove the signs and barriers they just drove over them.

True, but I wouldn't count on it! Some years ago a road near us (and a good cycling route ) was closed off for several months, they excavated a 6 foot deep pit across the entire width of the road and about 100 yards long. The bottom of the pit was just loose earth and mud, and there was no way of getting past it on either side without fighting one's way through a mixture of contractor's machinery and brambles. We tried cutting across fields once, but in the end gave up on that route.

At least they made good the surface of that road in the end (well they had no alternative!). In the course of which they removed a small 'undulation' in the road, making it flat along its length. Perhaps a slightly 'easier' ride for cyclists, albeit a bit less 'interesting'. I doubt if this was done for the benefit of cyclists though!

[Mark1978]

Roads being closed is an interesting one. Certainly from what I've seen if the road is impassible by cyclists there will be a supplementary yellow sign saying "Road Closed to Cyclists and Pedestrians" as well as the red ROAD CLOSED sign.

There's been a couple of examples near me last year, one where a hill climb had a wall which had fallen down, onto the road, easy to avoid on a bike. Another where part of the road had been washed away, again easy to avoid on a bike and nice to have the road closed off.

[[XAP]Bob]

It's that "pedestrians" sign which is important, because we can become pedestrians to pass if needed.

[iviehoff]

Hi
Please sign this petition.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67408
I nearly came off my road bike the other week as there had been no attempt at all to sweep away the loose stones. Like riding on marbles.

Sadly your petition is based upon a misunderstanding of what surface dressing is and what it is for. I suggest you delete it, because no one will take any notice of a petition founded upon such misunderstandings, and will find them very easy to bat off. We actually need more surface dressing, not less. But clearly we need it to be done properly and safely.

Surface dressing is not resurfacing, cheap or otherwise. It is a life-extension technique for the existing road surface. It is a cost-effective and low carbon road maintenance technique. A lot less of it has been done of late, because of budget restrictions, and this has been a false economy, because it has resulted in road surfaces breaking up and potholing. Potholes are terrible for cyclists, and when you next see a badly potholed road, you can think "if only they'd done a surface dressing in time, this wouldn't have happened."

As I said, what we need is for surface dressing to be done properly and safely. But I would caution against simply demanding things unless you have an idea how they can be practically and effectively delivered. Ask yourself, exactly what legal change do you have in mind that would achieve this. You can say, that's for them to say, but actually it isn't. It is easy for them to say that there isn't a practical adjustment and bat your demands off, unless you actually have something in mind and some evidence that it works well.

[[XAP]Bob]

OK - maybe surface dressing is wonderful. Why do they have to leave a half inch of gravel scattered all over the road.

Can they not roll it in?