preferred-google-button
log in
register

Government response to ‘Ban Surface Dressing roads’

  • Creator
    Topic
  • October 4, 2014 at 2:44 pm #22505
    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

    😐

  • Creator
    Topic
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 58 total)
1 2 3 4
  • Author
    Replies
  • October 10, 2014 at 7:26 am #816749
    0
    brooksby

    bikeboy76 wrote:Most urban

    bikeboy76 wrote:
    Most urban potholes are found where the road has been repaired shoddily. They dig up the road, but do not provide any after care or guarantee that the surface will not degrade after their works.

    My parish council had to make a notice that they were “trying” to force a utility company to repair two large holes which had been left when they’d dug holes in the road, in my village. They’d dug nice neat square holes down to whatever utility they were accessing, then filled it in and neatly tarmacced over the top. The only problem was, that they neatly and smoothly tarmacced it, but about two inches lower than the rest of the road… It took about six months for them to come back and fill it in level with the road.

    October 10, 2014 at 7:23 am #816747
    0
    brooksby

    crikey wrote:… Chipseal

    crikey wrote:
    … Chipseal repair, in my experience, is used largely on minor suburban roads, where heavy vehicles do not count for the majority of traffic.

    Hmm, just like the A4 Portway in Bristol – the main dual carriageway which goes from the city centre out to the M5 motorway and to the docks at Avonmouth and Portbury. ‘Cos you never see heavy vehicles on there, no sirree! 😉

    It requires a little more care for a month or so, until the surface has bedded in and the excess chips have been brushed up, but now it’s a great surface for riding on, laid quickly with minimum traffic disruption.

    I’ll grant you that. When the Portway was chipsealed recently, I was skidding about on loose chippings just crossing from one side to t’other.

    But now, a month or so later, it all seems to have settled in and even be wearing off in places, which is a great improvement…

    October 10, 2014 at 7:06 am #816745
    0
    crikey

    You know the questions you
    You know the questions you need to answer.
    So far it’s been suggested that we get more money from heavy vehicles and now from utility companies.
    I’m not seeing this actually happening even with my rose tinted glasses.
    I’m not commenting to display my experience as a cyclist, which is vast. I’m commenting to point out that the whole issue has been approached without any thought.

    There is a pressing need for sensible cycle related campaigning, this isn’t.

    October 10, 2014 at 7:06 am #816743
    0
    crikey

    You know the questions you
    You know the questions you need to answer.
    So far it’s been suggested that we get more money from heavy vehicles and now from utility companies.
    I’m not seeing this actually happening even with my rose tinted glasses.
    I’m not commenting to display my experience as a cyclist, which is vast. I’m commenting to point out that the whole issue has been approached without any thought.

    There is a pressing need for sensible cycle related campaigning, this isn’t.

    October 9, 2014 at 9:52 pm #816741
    0
    Leviathan

    Its always amusing to read a
    Its always amusing to read a fifth columnist amongst our ranks, trying to tread the line between provocateur and troll must be difficult. Crikey, your comments show no experience as a cyclist. ‘Just grow up’ is hardly the cleverest of rhetorical responses.

    Not only is the surface dangerous, its construction is based on the premise that drivers will stick to 20mph. This is never, NEVER, observed. The surface is not maintained properly or debris removed. It is a false economy. The financial crisis was in 2008, that is six years ago now. In that time I have seen with my own eyes chipped surfaces degrade and have to be treated again within 18 months. Using the crisis as an excuse is ridiculous. We are a wealthy nation, there is no dust bowl and people are still buying iphones. There is no excuse for throwing money at short term poor quality solutions.

    If councils need to maintain the road they should force those who cause potholes, not drivers or hauliers; but utilities companies to maintain it. Most urban potholes are found where the road has been repaired shoddily. They dig up the road, but do not provide any after care or guarantee that the surface will not degrade after their works. A road’s primary purpose is not as a conduit for buried utilities, and the crazy paving that is left above is not acceptable. When you pay £3.99 a month for Plusnet broadband you endorse this race to the bottom attitude.

    October 9, 2014 at 5:44 pm #816739
    0
    crikey

    Um, no.
    You proposed the
    Um, no.
    You proposed the whole idea of heavy vehicles paying for repairs to roads.

    A national change in vehicle taxation in response to a small number of disgruntled cyclists who don’t seem to be able to answer even the most basic questions raised?

    Call me an old cynic, but I can’t quite see it happening.

    October 9, 2014 at 5:16 pm #816737
    0
    felixcat

    crikey wrote:
    Um, the whole

    crikey wrote:

    Um, the whole idea of getting heavy vehicles to pay for the costs was your idea…

    So, still stuck at square one, what do you do instead and who pays for it?

    I am not the Treasury. I would attempt to get road haulage to pay its track costs on a macro level. Trying to allocate costs on a micro level, as you propose, is futile and unworkable.

    October 9, 2014 at 5:08 pm #816735
    0
    felixcat

    crikey wrote:I bet you’re

    crikey wrote:
    I bet you’re great at parties.

    Why? As it happens, I am silent until four drinks are taken, after that fluent and charming until eight are under the belt but then I turn vicious.

    October 9, 2014 at 5:07 pm #816733
    0
    crikey

    I bet you’re great at
    I bet you’re great at parties.

    This is not whataboutery but an attempt to get you to see that your idea that we have to work out, perhaps for the sake of fairness, how the costs of bodging road repairs with top dressing are incurred, and charge these costs to the vehicles which use each road, is not how things are done, and anyway is unworkable

    Um, the whole idea of getting heavy vehicles to pay for the costs was your idea…

    So, still stuck at square one, what do you do instead and who pays for it?

    Surface dressing is apparently about 5 times cheaper than conventional resurfacing. Somehow I can’t see many people agreeing to pay 5 times as much to repair roads to allow cyclists that smoooooooooth journey to work.

    Bye.

    October 9, 2014 at 4:46 pm #816731
    0
    felixcat

    There was no “whataboutery”
    There was no “whataboutery” in my post. What I was doing was pointing out your mistakes about the principles and practice of public expenditure and revenue.
    Perhaps the best way to get it through to you is to bring up the concept of “hypothecation”.
    Hypothecation is the idea that a particular tax should be spent in a particular cause, probably related to the way the tax is applied. The Treasury, for its own good reasons, has always strongly resisted hypothecation. The Treasury doctrine is that all taxation goes into one pot, out of which the government spends.
    If hypothecation is allowed we would have smokers complaining that tabacco tax is spent on this and that, but never on facilities for smokers. One might reply that the tax is spent on lung cancer and heart surgery wards and treatment. You would presumably quibble that more (or perhaps less) money is spent on treating smokers than is brought in by tobacco taxes. This is beside the point. What taxes should pay for schools?
    This is not whataboutery but an attempt to get you to see that your idea that we have to work out, perhaps for the sake of fairness, how the costs of bodging road repairs with top dressing are incurred, and charge these costs to the vehicles which use each road, is not how things are done, and anyway is unworkable.
    As far as fairness goes, the costs imposed by road transport much exceed their taxes. The tax needs to go up, if fairness is the aim. I would say that if road is to compete with rail then both should pay their track/road costs, not out of some notion of fairness, but because the present arrangement distorts the market, and leads to the public paying for road haulage costs out of council tax, and income tax.
    I will deal with your idea that lorry damage is confined to HGVs on trunk roads later. The alarm to tell me the carbonara is cooked has just gone.

    October 9, 2014 at 3:45 pm #816729
    0
    crikey

    All of which is more
    All of which is more whataboutery and sidesteps the actual issue which is surface dressing rather than the complexities of HGV taxation.
    The majority of roads that are surface dressed are not subject to HGV traffic*, therefore the taxation or not of HGVs would seem to be a subject for a wider national road repair debate rather than one pertinent to local council road repair technique.

    *in my experience…

    October 9, 2014 at 3:28 pm #816727
    0
    felixcat

    Crikey, you may want to
    Crikey, you may want to complicate the question, for your own ends, but it really is irrelevant exactly where the costs are allocated. HGVs do so much more damage than cars, (and cars so much more than bikes), that a precise accounting is superfluous.
    At present for example VED is charged on emissions, roughly calculated in bands of engine size. Noone is particularly bothered that this gives sudden jumps in VED with a small increase in capacity. Still less that some vehicles emit their noxious gas in cities where it stagnates, and some on windy western promontories where the gas is quickly dispersed. It is enough that capacity gives a rough guide to emissions.
    There are other costs HGVs do not pay. Some of these are imposed in urban areas.
    One visit by a lorry to your village road can do as much damage as many cars. At the moment HGVs do not pay their track costs. Any increase in tax on them is change in the right direction. It is unecessary to work out where and when they do the damage.

    October 9, 2014 at 2:36 pm #816725
    0
    crikey

    Felix; unfortunately I need
    Felix; unfortunately I need to complicate matters further. Heavy vehicles spend most of their time on Motorways, dual carriageways and A roads. Chipseal repair, in my experience, is used largely on minor suburban roads, where heavy vehicles do not count for the majority of traffic. Tax them as much as you like; you’re not actually addressing the issue.

    Jimmy; I’ve no idea what all that Tesco related whataboutery is trying to say.
    I’ve lots and lots and lots of experience of riding on chipseal repaired roads. My local villages have all been through the whole thing this year, and yes, it made riding different. I no longer have to think about the next stretch of road, nor do I have to carry a mental map of where all the potholes and damaged tarmac is because the chip seal surface has covered it all.

    It requires a little more care for a month or so, until the surface has bedded in and the excess chips have been brushed up, but now it’s a great surface for riding on, laid quickly with minimum traffic disruption.

    I do hope you will all be careful during the autumn when the roads become covered in wet leaves, and during the winter, when the roads can become icy…

    I notice that no-one has yet addressed any of the actual practical issues raised, namely;
    What are you going to repair roads with instead, how much will it cost over the use of chipseal, and who is going to pay for it?

    I heard a spokesman from Manchester council say that their budget has been cut by 41%.
    Local councils have the responsibility for road repair.
    Any serious attempt to look at this as an issue needs to do so realistically…

    October 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm #816723
    0
    felixcat

    Have you not been reading the
    Have you not been reading the financial pages lately? Recently Tesco admitted a quarter of a billion pound hole in their accounts.

    October 9, 2014 at 1:33 pm #816721
    0
    Jimmy Ray Will

    Crikey indeed…
    So having
    Crikey indeed…

    So having been so wonderfully corrected my clear stupidity, I’ll make one more blundering, ignorant post and move on.

    Personally I believe safety concerns are valid to raise, and in my obviously dense head, I foolishly value safety concerns over pure cost savings.

    There is a fantastic quote from the boss of Tesco’s that talks about the ‘efficiency’ of the public sector, but I don’t have it to hand, but to paraphrase… he basically says that if he Tesco’s was run in the same manner as the Public sector, there would simply be no Tesco’s. But then… he only runs a few grocery stores; clearly a moron.

    Caveat: I appreciate that the recent profit mis-calculation thingy does not brilliantly support my above point, but hey ho, what can I do, I’m a think chump.

    Out of interest, what are your experiences of riding this style of road dressing?

    Personally I’ve gone down once (many moons ago) and had several very big moments. But then, I won’t have the skills I guess…

  • Author
    Replies
Viewing 15 replies - 16 through 30 (of 58 total)
1 2 3 4
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.