[Leviathan]

Ban Surface Dressing roads
Responsible department: Department for Transport

A cheap but dangerous form of road re surfacing is surface dressing, which is tar sprayed onto a poor surface and then left with loose chipping for months Any that are not stuck down can cause a hazard to any road user. This is fastest and cheapest however due to the chipping it is definitely the most dangerous surface for any and all two wheeled vehicles. Riding on this surface is not only dangerous but does a lot more harm than good. This cheap and nasty surface isn’t sustainable and has to be re-done often and has no benefit whatsoever. If your going to do a job you may as well do it properly!
This form of road surfacing needs to be banned from the UK roads. all drivers would much rather have a road closed for longer and be done properly, rather than having to drive through a minefield and causing their vehicle damage which can be costly. The state of our roads has been an ongoing issue in this country and needs to be addressed.

As this e-petition has received more than 10 000 signatures, the relevant Government department have provided the following response: This Government takes the issue of road safety and the condition of the road network very seriously. Indeed the Government is investing more than £6bn in this Parliament and £12bn in the next for highways maintenance on both the strategic and local road network. There are many types of materials to resurface the highway network. This type of dressing will seal the old road surface, preventing the ingress of water which causes deterioration of the road surface, and the road matrix and so reducing the risk of wider scale deterioration and road failure. When designed and laid properly they pose no additional risks. On many roads where traffic flow are not excessively high, surface dressings have been shown to be both cost-effective and sustainable. The Highways Agency, responsible for the motorway and trunk road network, do not routinely use this type of dressing due to the high traffic flows. For local roads, which are the statutory responsibility of local highway authorities, it is for each individual authority to decide on the most suitable materials to be used for resurfacing and repair works, based upon their local knowledge and circumstances. This e-petition remains open to signatures and will be considered for debate by the Backbench Business Committee should it pass the 100 000 signature threshold.

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67408

😐

Topic

[crikey]

We ride on the same roads,
We ride on the same roads, and I think they are much better now. I’ve ridden there for the last 25 years and it’s definitely an improvement. Having watched various local businesses suffer recently, any major road repair that stops traffic from passing by will have a serious impact on them, one that they cannot afford.

I appreciate that you think I’m being a troll, but my intention is to point out the lack of thought in this petition. No one has been able to answer the simple questions I’ve asked, and they are exactly the questions that any local council traffic officer would have to think of.

[andyp]

If I did think that, why
If I did think that, why would I be signing a petition to try to get surface dressing banned?

[crikey]

Don’t you think your local
Don’t you think your local roads are much better now they’ve been done?

[andyp]

classy *and* true.
classy *and* true.

[crikey]

Quote: Quite fantastically

Quite fantastically stupid.

Classy.

[brooksby]

crikey wrote:There is an easy

crikey wrote:

There is an easy answer to the safety issue; ban cycling on all chipseal repaired roads for a month post repair.

But who’ll think about the damage to motor vehicles??? I had to take my car to a garage after chip/gravel got stuck in the brakes when driving along a newly chipsealed road. There are constant complaints about damage caused to paintwork.

I think the only answer is to ban all vehicles (motor or not) from chipseal repaired roads for a month post repair.

Oh, wait, but then it would never bed in, so the road could never re-open… 😕

[andyp]

crikey wrote:
See what you

crikey wrote:

See what you can achieve by thinking a problem through?

Feel the irony. Quite fantastically stupid.

[crikey]

There is an easy answer to
There is an easy answer to the safety issue; ban cycling on all chipseal repaired roads for a month post repair.

If it’s such a safety issue, you’ll agree that it makes sense, and it’s economically neutral.

See what you can achieve by thinking a problem through?

I really am going now; don’t run with scissors…

[andyp]

brooksby wrote:
Isn’t the

brooksby wrote:

Isn’t the reality that some people have had “near-death experiences on bits of gravel”?

You would think so, wouldn’t you? But apparently as long as it has never happened to you, it is a problem which doesn’t exist.

[brooksby]

crikey wrote:Surface dressing

crikey wrote:

Surface dressing has been in use and in development since the 1970s, and is used across Europe and across the UK because it’s cheaper and quicker than conventional resurfacing. …

This has been an advertorial by the British gravel association. Bringing you rough and loose road surfaces since 1970 😉

Stop trotting out boring commuter stories about your near-death experiences on bits of gravel and start thinking about the reality.

Isn’t the reality that some people have had “near-death experiences on bits of gravel”?

I’m done.

Promise?

[andyp]

I’m not quite sure why people
I’m not quite sure why people here are focussed on the ‘smooth journey’ (or ‘smoooooooooth journey’ if you like to be childish). It’s a safety issue, not a comfort one. A loose, crumbling surface is less safe than an intact one.

[Al__S]

Just because something has
Just because something has been done for years doesn’t make it right.

It’s cheap, yes- and nasty.

(and you’ve had the biggest “miss the point” in this thread when you brought hardcore endurance cyclocross into it)

[crikey]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!
You’re
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!

You’re all missing the point!
Surface dressing has been in use and in development since the 1970s, and is used across Europe and across the UK because it’s cheaper and quicker than conventional resurfacing.
If you want a change from this you’ve got to look at the issue from a sensible, logical, economic and industrial point of view, not from a grumpy cyclist point of view.
1. If you want a change, what do you want to change to?
2. If you want a change, how much more will it cost?
3. If it costs more, how will we pay for it?
4. If it takes longer, what are the implications for traffic delays?
5. If it takes longer, what are the implications for local businesses?
6. Given that there are 40 years of experience which all show it’s good way of prolonging the life of roads, what evidence do you have that a change is going to be better?

Stop trotting out boring commuter stories about your near-death experiences on bits of gravel and start thinking about the reality.

Think as well about the impact that this petition has had; does it demonstrate an attention to detail, or a sensible, well thought out approach or does it read like an opinionated rant aimed at the wrong people?

I’m done.

[brooksby]

crikey wrote:Anecdote and

crikey wrote:

Anecdote and opinion shared between cyclists hasn’t really helped so far has it?

I signed the petition. Unfortunately, along with many people (including, I suspect, the originators of the petition) I hadn’t done my homework.

It seems that there was really very little point in petitioning HM Govt about this, when they could just turn around and say that the Highways Agency is responsible for major A-roads, &c, but that any other road is the responsibility of each council individually.

That said, I do personally think that road dressing is a cheapskate and a rubbish form of re-surfacing.

[crikey]

Anecdote and opinion shared
Anecdote and opinion shared between cyclists hasn’t really helped so far has it?

[Author]

Replies