- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Pothole (copyright Simon MacMichael).jpgGovernment's extra £100 million to fix potholes "too little too late" says Cycling UK
Transport secretary Chris Grayling has announced further funding of £100 million to help councils fix potholes – but Cycling UK says that while the extra cash is welcome, it is “too little too late.”
The money, officially designated ‘pothole/flood resilience funding’ by the Department for Transport (DfT), will be shared by 121 local authorities throughout England.
The largest amounts go to the North East Combined Authority, which receives £4.5 million and Devon, which gets £4.4 million plus a separate sum of £2.5 million announced by prime minister Theresa May earlier this month for repairs to the A379 and which is included in the £100 million total.
Details of the individual amounts by local authority can be found on the DfT website.
Announcing the funding, Grayling said: “People rely on good roads to get to work and to see friends or family.
“We have seen an unusually prolonged spell of freezing weather which has caused damage to our local roads.
“We are giving councils even more funding to help repair their roads so all road users can enjoy their journeys without having to dodge potholes.”
Yesterday, Cycling UK published research showing that local authorities responding to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request had spent a combined total of £43.3 million on compensation and legal fees following claims from cyclists and motorists as a result of road defects.
> Cycling UK: Pothole lawsuits costing councils almost £9 million a year
Responding to Grayling’s announcement today, the charity’s senior campaigns officer, Sam Jones, said: “Any funding which will help improve our roads is welcome, but it does not change the fact it is still too little too late.
“Giving money simply to fill potholes is the same as if a doctor had put a broken leg in plaster before setting the fracture. The bone is still weak, poorly healed and more likely to break again and the same can be said for our roads too if we persist in just funding patchwork jobs rather than full scale road resurfacing.
“Cycling UK’s research published on Sunday has shown the true cost is a human one as people cycling are suffering from personal injury and in the worst cases even dying.
“The government should concentrate on fixing the underlying problems of our current local roads network before building new ones.
“Councils need enough funding to adopt long-term plans for roads maintenance, as repairing streets only as they become dangerous can only ever be a short-term solution.”
Around three in four local authorities across the UK responded to Cycling UK’s FOI request.
Key findings for the period 2013-17 included:
Authorities on average incurred costs of £277,707.44
670 cyclists and 30,893 drivers had their claims accepted
Motorists received on average £841.26 per successful claim
Cyclists received on average £10,963.15 per successful claim
£9,980,158.74 was spent on legal costs.
The higher compensation secured by cyclists compared to motorists was attributed to the fact that their claims were much more likely to relate to personal injury than property damage.
DfT road traffic casualty statistics show that since 2007, some 390 cyclists have been killed or seriously injured due to poor or defective road surfaces.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Hirsute 0 sec ago
But it does alert you to incompetent and dgaf drivers giving you 2-3 seconds to escape being a KSI.
- lonpfrb 17 min 20 sec ago
Quite so, which is why our village 20mph zone covers the whole residential extent. Of course, enforcement is another thing..
- lonpfrb 43 min 19 sec ago
No, that's very doubtful while proper testing would be fully destructive.
- TheBillder 1 hour 29 min ago
In that £1000 exactly scenario, beginners should probably be made aware that pedals will be extra.
- don simon fbpe 1 hour 57 min ago
What's wrong with dropping down on to the Millenium Bridge, or the swing bridge, then the brief, but satisfying climb back up the hill? #training....
- chrisonabike 2 hours 38 min ago
The relatives might of course disagree, but in general I'd countenance a relatively light sentence* if only we could fix it so that those who...
- ktache 3 hours 17 min ago
Id forgotten that I got a second hand set of project two's for my getting to work bike over twenty years back.
- Veganpotter 4 hours 14 min ago
My bet is that all these tires popping off are from people with bad pressure gauges or they're simply just putting too much air in on purpose. ...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 30 min ago
David9694 - you were right! These new autonomous vehicles really are conspiring to run out of control!...
Add new comment
39 comments
Wasn't able to get round to writing this out earlier about HGV's/ road condition and then it took longer than expected, then I couldn't find the thread, but here goes...
To explain how HGVs are considered I think I briefly need to mention design. Roads are basically designed in 4 layers, thicker coarser layers at the bottom, thinner more dense layers at the top. The lower 2 layers are the foundation, the upper 2 to provide a running surface and transfer loads to the foundations. The design depth/type is made by calculating the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT). Vehicles are converted to a number of standard axles (motorcycles = 1, cars = 2, lorries = 5 etc) and usually planners will calculate the amount and type of vehicles to use the road (eg. an estate road may be 2-5 million std axles where a local road would be between 5-20 million).
All materials have a design life, the lower layers typically about 30, the upper, 20 years for Hot Rolled Asphalt (the most common urban surfacing) lower for other materials. So all things being perfect the new road can take x amount of std axles for y amount of years. The point here is there is no differentiation between vehicle type, its been taken care of in the design. Increase the % of HGVs on the road and it would just be considered to 'use up' the std axle allowance faster, shortening the lifespan - it wouldn't suddenly just cause damage to the carriageway.
But obviously things aren't perfect. When the road is laid, material quality, correct grading, air temp, humidity, compaction, experience of contractor can all introduce minor defects in whats gone down, defects that in time develop into problems. Once down defects can be caused by, age, wear, sun, water, cold, existing ground & previous damage to name a few. Should there be a minor defect, it will eventually cause a problem. When you see a minor hole or a crack, thats likely been years in the making and only recently become visible. A crack or pothole thats been caused by vehicle damage exploiting a defect would appear whether its cars or HGVs going over it, but if its mostly HGVs it just appears earlier.
Vehicle wear does cause damage, but again its usually cumulative. Longitudinal cracks are usually vehicle wear, but there's probably another source sticking its oar in as well. If you have 100m of road and that road material is the same, laid in the same pass, with the same traffic over its length, why is the crack or pothole not the whole length of the road? Even something like a patch of sunlight or shade can have an effect.
Road defects
Longitudinal cracks aren't much of an issue, they expand slowly and there's nothing you can do to repair them other than taking out a slab of the road with it - not cost effective. Transverse cracks are more of a problem, tyres rolling over the crack edges will expand it and turn it into a pothole, but as previous, yes an HGV will exacerbate this problem faster than cars would but it probably didn't cause the problem.
Crazing (an extended shallow crater with a crazy paving surface) normally found at bus stops. Generally causing by stationary vehicles/stop starts, usually happens in older roads nearing the end of the design life, compressing the foundation material. If in a new road, likely to be a material failure. (I always pay attention on the bike when seeing a bus stop in the distance).
Rutting, depressions caused by wheel tracks. Again design life normally is a factor here. You might get the situation where these last two appears in a new looking surface. That surface may be a replacement surface laid over an existing foundation so although the surface is new the lower layers may now be old and failing. An extended length of rutting suggests age, short lengths suggest material failure.
Abrasion. Tyre wear eventually degrades the top surface allowing water in and weathering effects, reduces the grip properties & contributes to other problems. Then you'll see surface dressing as its the cheapest/easiest way to halt any further wear. Abrasion is more of a problem in areas with turning movements.
Potholes, caused by any of the above, but primarily water. If it gets into a road (under the top layer) the freeze/thaw cycle expands it and causes potholes, by expanding the layer and braking up the surface above. Water in a crack in the suface course isn't as big a problem as it has somewhere to go when it expands.
So when any road damage appears, there's any number of factors that could have caused it, vehicles are only one. By its nature, road material is a pain the arris and doesn't lend itslf to minor repairs, all you can do is fill the hole with a dense material and compact it, however eventually the joins are going to wear away. To repair it 'properly' you'd have a cut large sections out around poholes and rebuild the layers, then you'd be able to roll it properly. If that happened for every hole, only a 1/10th of what gets fixed now would do so.
Thats mostly speaking in generally, I could have made that 3 times as long but no-one wants to read that.
As an aside, I currently work for a County Council but am normally in the private sector. I've found that the people involved are doing everything they can to keep on top of things but are generally operating with one hand tied behind their backs. There's never enough money to maintain everything, they do as much as they can but some things have to be prioritised. If potholes in one area aren'r getting fixed, it's likely to be because the plant and material required for it is being used in another area - there's always a backlog. I now think Councils get more stick than deserved just on public perception.
Heavy vehicles properly chew the shit out of roads. There's a road near mine which goes to a coach park. Quite a tight turn to get an 12 ton bus in and out of there and obviously it's being used nearly 24/7.
No matter how much road repair is done, the surface is absolutely wrecked again within a few months. One pothole creates an impact area as the tyre bounces in and out, the turning means a high degree of shear against the surface and combined that means as soon as there is one slight bump or dip or imperfection, it exponentially drives the decay of the surrounding area and so on and so on.
You get the same at bus stops, have a look next time you ride past one at how bad the road is there compared to the rest. Big dips, ridges, potholes etc where buses have pulled in and the wear forces from braking, accelerating and turning have smashed the whole thing to bits.
In answer to the question about foreign roads - most places don't put utilities directly under the roads, they do it to one side - have a closer look next time you're in France or Spain at the main roads and they all havce access hatches down the sides. Not manhole covers in the middle. Means they're not being dug up all the bloody time, you just open a hatch at the side. Manhole covers just give water one more area to access the road surface, freeze and pull it all to bits.
yes, this is all absolutely true. I forgot to add utilities as sources of problems - you can't compact material around manholes or directly over pipes properly. Also joints between passes of laying material. You'll likely see a line of bitumen down between lanes, that eventaully wears/weathers away.
I would note when I've talked about HGVs, I'm meaning on a road where all traffic is moving in a 'straight' line, your coach turning example is correct, I'd run out of steam to get into that.
Talking of priorities, I'm glad to see that the search for Madeleine McCann is getting some more money (£150,000?).
Total cost now over £11 million. Puts the pothole fund into context.
A bit of an indication as to priorities, at least.
A Russian spy attack, three victims: £50m instantly found for Porton Down.
In the time since the last Russian spy attack (one victim), at least 400 cyclists have suffered KSIs due to potholes. That'll* be worth £100m.
And the bribery to team up with the Pleasant Party to not-quite ensure control of the Commons: £1bn.
* probably £100m for drivers' inconvenience and busted suspension, but let's take it where we can get it.
Get ride of HS2 and the Stonehenge tunnel and you'd have £60 BILLION to spend on Britains roads, potholes and cycling infrastructure. This government is insane.
i agree with this, except for the last sentence. They're not insane, they’re channeling the money to their chums and future directorships.
£70billion for crossrail which won't even at maximum capacity of 200 million journeys per year get even close to the 2014 figure of London cycling journeys (circa 222Million)
£70Billion invested in London for cycling infra like a proper East to West 6m wide bidirectional 'highway' and banishing motors from one side of all connecting roads (so one side is cycling only with priority at all turn) would triple cycling and make the journeys made by crossrail look like a piss poor use of money, oh wait, it already is!
Yeah but that just helps Londoners, us Northern folk want HS2 so we can make them sod off back home more quickly!
No, under £15 billion.
www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/crossrail-station-delays-see-190m-stati...
It's high time the allocate all of the £12 BILLION they rake in each year from VED charges instead of using it else where in the economy.
Imagine £12 billion being spent on our roads each year.
I'd rather they used council tax to pay to repair the roads, given that it is councils that generally have to fork out for road repairs.
I don't know where VED goes, but I don't seem to be getting anything in return for paying it on two vehicles.
100 million seems like sticking a small plaster over a sliced-off limb.
It's a tax just like income tax, insurance tax, beer duty, VAT and all the others. You don't get anything back for it.
And I wouldn't feel so hard done by, there's no 'war on the motorist' in this country. Quite the reverse! As pointed out further up the discussion, the paltry amount of VED you pay falls a very long way short of paying for the impact your vehicle use has on you, those around you and everything else.
http://ipayroadtax.com/no-such-thing-as-road-tax/when-will-drivers-start...
https://rdrf.org.uk/2012/12/31/the-true-costs-of-automobility-external-c...
If you don't like paying so much VED then why not change your vehicles for zero or low emission models? The banding system has been in place for a long time now. Most people spend far more on fuel than VED so you'd save a lot more money (and so pay less tax) by driving one with good mpg, reducing your annual mileage and driving economically; as an additional benefit, all those things are also great for reducing pollution and congestion and making the roads safer.
You missed my point and got the wrong end of the stick in a such a spectacular way it's almost funny. You don't know how much I pay in VED or what impact my vehicles have.
I drive less miles than I cycle. My main vehicle does 60mpg. I already do all the things you suggest. I probably will get an electric car... when it makes overall sense to do so. But supporting the car industry by buying another seems at odds with the rest of your post.
@Moist von Lipwig - thanks for the insight. Always good to understand better.
Spectacular? Hmmmm, I'm struggling to work that out...
My comment wasn't about how much you pay or whether you drive more than you cycle. You were complaining about paying VED so I suggested a possible way to reduce it and pointed out that for most people the cost of fuel is far higher.
If you decided to replace your current vehicles no-one says you have to buy brand new car. You're already supporting the car industry by owning and using your current ones - we all do when we have a service or MoT, replace tyres, parts etc etc. I have owned a car for 30 years but I think I've done it much more cheaply than most people; however, the overall cost (and impact) and being "part of the problem" still bothers me. But I want/need to drive.
So what was your point?
Any road surface experts out there?
Having been to Austria on quite a few occasions I'm baffled to see that the majority of their roads are super nice. Question is given they have 'proper' winters and drivers using snow chains every year why are UK roads so crap?
Do we use an inferior road surface or something?
I'll hesitate to use the word expert, but as a highway engineer at a County Council, but I can answer part of your question (I've no idea what austrian roads are made of ). The majority of the time in the UK, surface damage isn't caused by tyre wear, its caused by water. If we had 'proper winters' the roads would actually be in better condition. The worst thing for a road surface is a freeze/thaw cycle - once even a small amount of water gets in between the aggregate and the bitumen, it freezes (quite often due to ambient temp of the material rather than the air temp). expands, causes a crack, which then lets in more moisture, repeats, throw in tyre scuff once the surface starts to go, there's your pothole. The weather we've just had is about as bad for carriageway material as you could ask for.
There's a whole load of other factors that can contribute to damage but water is the main culprit for potholes.
If you're a real masochist, P.13 onwards
https://m.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/sites/default/files/folders/documents/r...
I'm suspicious of anyone blaming the water when their first name is "Moist".
Whilst I fully understand that the weather we've just had exascerbates the pothole growth, weather alone is not the issue, else every car-park and pavement across the country would be in an equal state of ruin, nor would it account for the road defects that open up in summer months.
I'm more inclined to conclude that heavy vehicular traffic is the main reason for road damage, that can be further accelerated by foul weather, but the main cause is cars and lorries exerting impact loads (from existing imperfections/ speed bumps) and shear stresses (particularly under wide wheels when turning, and any wheels accelerating and braking)
I interpreted it as moisture (weather) being the root cause, and then heavy vehicles knocking the shit out of it being the secondary factor.
Either way, yes: heavy vehicles seem to be a crucial part of the equation.
The answer to the original question was UK potholes relative to countries with 'proper Winters' where the answer is as Davel reads it. There's a longer answer regarding overall damage (and repair). I'll cobble something together later as it'll take a bit more time!
In the words of the Patrician; "Don't let me detain you Mr Lipwig", I'd appreciate a technical view of the matter, (being one of those masochists you previously alluded to, but can't read the report whilst at work)
Obviously the chain of effects is more complex than most would realise, but I had the impression of vehicles causing small-scale damage to the surface, allowing the water and freeze-thaw damage to open up and break the road's deeper structural integrity, for the continuing traffic to then pummel and disperse the cracked tarmac to rubble.
I interpreted it as lorries cause surface damage that allows water to penetrate and then cause major damage.
I'm not a road expert but I understand the damage is caused by the number of freeze/thaw cycles not the length of time below zero or the minimum temperature reached.
Each time water freezes it expands if this happens in or under the road surface there is potential for damage. The most important aspect of road construction is to seal the surface to keep water out, then to ensure the water can leave the surface.
This is what we are bad at especially with pothole repairs where the sealing is usually ineffective at the join between old and new and the repair will typically be wrecked if there are lots of freeze thaw transitions.
Not least because we allow a large number of competing privatised utility providers to dig up and 'restore' our roads, creating multiple weaknesses which they really don't give a toss about.
This £100M will likely be largely wasted anyway, even if it is spend on a few potholes out of the millions needing a fill. Most English road mending these days seems to be implemented by highly inept road menders, probably directed by some privatised cowboy firm to do least outlay & wages for biggest profit. Stupid councils still accept lowest tender, despite the obvious potfalls. Where a pothole or other patchable bit of road is actually patched, the patch often crumbles to an even worse condition within a few weeks.
If you bought a bike-shaped object from a bike shop and discovered it wasn't actually possible to cycle on it for more than a few miles without it ceasing to function, you'd get your money back. Why don't councils get our rate-money back from these cowboy patchers whose patches are in fact merely patch-shaped lumps of loose gravel and cheap tarmac tossed in the 'ole?
Better still, why don't they go and learn how to do it right from The West Welsh, who still seem to have road menders of the professional ilk, with a desire to do a very good job? Smooth ribbons of black tarmac and patches that are contiguous with the rest of the road, that last for years.
Cugel
I agree but where is the incentive for so-called "cash-strapped" councils to do anything else? Contracting out these services saves them loads in wages, pensions and other ongoing costs (though not in redundancy payments).
And yet Shropshire council's cuts don't stop them spending a predicted £20 million on yet another bypass, £23 million on a new IT system and £51 million to buy the 2 significant shopping precincts in the town centre... at a time when there is a record number of empty shops and yet more out-of-town supermarkets are being built.
All this while other budgets, such as public transport, social care, youth and disability service, have seen massive cuts.
Seems the way to get potholes fixed is to organise a charity ride along the road.
Logged 3 potholes 2 weeks ago via FixMyStreet, including in the description that they were on the route of a charity ride on Saturday.
Sure enough, when I rode past on Saturday, they were fixed.
Coincidence?
Maybe but reporting them is the key thing. It creates a legal liability which may not otherwise be presumed.
Additional detail - like upcoming charity rides - can't but help of course. I wish the organisers if yesterday's Cheshire Cat ride had been as conscientious as you!
Pages