Something positive we can do to make cycling safer.

[Binky]

Expense and time are not an excuse for the public to roll over and say, "aww, forget it then, keep the money for your shareholders dividend and we'll shut up moaning about the damage to vehicles and the occasional dead person,"

I don't think anyone is saying forget it. Plenty of us are reporting potholes etc and expect them to be dealt with.

I'm merely pointing out the reality of the situation.

 

[Drago]

And im pointing out that the reality of the situation today in no way precludes that situation being changed for tomorrow.

The BBC presents the matter almost as a fait accompli, and that is in no way the case.

 

[roubaixtuesday]

The issue here is that we have paid for this already. We've paid for proper maintenance and repair, but with the arrival of outsourcing the priority went from doing the best job possible for the budget to one of doing the cheapest job they can. They follow that morel in order to take as much profit rrom the budget as possible today, and hang the consequences for tomorrow.

I see one group is trying to get an injunction to prevent the government allowing the water companies to raise bills to pay for upgrades. Theyre seeking it on the basis thet consumers have already paid for these ulgrades but the suppliers chose to pay the surplus to shareholders instead and that consumers should not be charged twice for the same thing. A fair point. Wouldn't it be nice if a group did the same with the refards to the big Highways authorities contractors such as Kier?

Im not going to get political on on that point, I only mention it for context in this instance. The issue here being that, yes, it will be expensive and tjme consuming to repair roads to a decent standard, but seeing as that's what we've been paying for since outsourcing became common in the 90s its not unreasonable to expect it to happen, regardless of how expensive, time consuming or inconvenient it may be.

Expense and time are not an excuse for the public to roll over and say, "aww, forget it then, keep the money for your shareholders dividend and we'll shut up moaning about the damage to vehicles and the occasional dead person,"

Bottom line is we pay, we have been doing so for decades, and it is in not in any way whatsoever unreasonable to expect a situation that prioritises that service.

This is incorrect. We are not paying.

We in fact pay the lowest taxes in Western Europe and get corresponding level of services.

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-data-item/total-tax-revenue-share-gdp-oecd-countries

(And remember we also get free health care from those taxes; many others in those countries have to contribute)

 

[nogoodnamesleft]

The issue here is that we have paid for this already. We've paid for proper maintenance and repair, but with the arrival of outsourcing the priority went from doing the best job possible for the budget to one of doing the cheapest job they can. They follow that morel in order to take as much profit rrom the budget as possible today, and hang the consequences for tomorrow.

I see one group is trying to get an injunction to prevent the government allowing the water companies to raise bills to pay for upgrades. Theyre seeking it on the basis thet consumers have already paid for these ulgrades but the suppliers chose to pay the surplus to shareholders instead and that consumers should not be charged twice for the same thing. A fair point. Wouldn't it be nice if a group did the same with the refards to the big Highways authorities contractors such as Kier?

Im not going to get political on on that point, I only mention it for context in this instance. The issue here being that, yes, it will be expensive and tjme consuming to repair roads to a decent standard, but seeing as that's what we've been paying for since outsourcing became common in the 90s its not unreasonable to expect it to happen, regardless of how expensive, time consuming or inconvenient it may be.

Expense and time are not an excuse for the public to roll over and say, "aww, forget it then, keep the money for your shareholders dividend and we'll shut up moaning about the damage to vehicles and the occasional dead person,"

Bottom line is we pay, we have been doing so for decades, and it is in not in any way whatsoever unreasonable to expect a situation that prioritises that service.

One aspect I get uncertain about is the nature of some of the work Highways do. I mainly cycle on single track rural roads. I dislike surface dressing of many of these roads and several years back cycling came across contractors surface dressing a single track rural road and stopped and chatted and commented that as the road hadn't been repaired it would have potholes soon to which contractors commented about it being a complete waste of time & money as "it's not a road but a farm track somebody threw some tarmac over ... but we get paid, stay in work and company profitable". And sure enough within a few weeks I was reporting holes and splits in the road.

I appreciate that surface dressing is effective on some roads but doesn't seem to help of the single lane tracks round me and actually can become dangerous as they often don't bother sweeping the excess grit up (after a few weeks) and that forms into deep piles on bends and junctions. Also, as they don't repair potholes before surface dressing the new uniform grey surface makes spotting and thsu avoiding the holes harder.

 

[presta]

Basically, the choice is between higher taxes, higher vehicle repair costs or less traffic weight. Can't have low taxes and high traffic without repairing suspensions more often, plus it farks those with narrower tyres...

Getting it is another matter. More hospitals, more health care workers, more buses, more trains, more road repairs, more spending on defence and armed forces, more police etc etc etc.

The root of the problem is the Baumol Effect, and society's refusal to recognise it. Economic growth that make everyone richer makes labour more expensive, and labour intensive activities like public services increasingly unaffordable. Then a certain element accuse anyone who tries to address the problem of being an irresponsible spendthrift, and cry left wing conspiracy.

(Without wanting to stray into NCAP territory) I wonder if it's more complex in that some vehicles can cause more damage than othets.

Sure I've seen articles saying how HGVs cause disproportionately more damage in relation to the VED they pay so thus some drivers are in effect subsidising eg goods deliveries.

I wonder if mileage charging is the way forward (based on eg carbon emissions/mile and/or vehicle weight, etc.). I wonder if recent budget changes might need to find a mechanism to measure mileage for such charges making such schemes feasible.

Claiming no expertise and very open to having my recollections and opinions corrected.

https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/696d402f-a45a-11e9-9d01-01aa75ed71a1

Back before covid the AA did an analysis and they reckoned fuel pricing had reached a point that each penny rise of duty on fuel was counterproductive - they reckoned people were genuinely driving less because of the cost, which not only reduced fuel duty income but VAT redeipts as well on top of that, so bumping up duty was bringing in less taxation overall.

That suggest that the AA see the primary function of fuel tax as revenue raising, not behaviour change.

 

[ebikeerwidnes]

Then...

a. Vehicle tax rates should rise so the people causing the damage pay for the damage, and that is ringfenced and not just dumped in the general taxation pool. If vehicle tax has to double then tough sheet - everyone else has to pay when they cause damage to something. The reason this doesnt happen is nothing to do with the practicalities of the problem, and everything to do with politicians sheeting themselves they wont get reelected.

b. The sooner they start on repairs the better.

These are lame excuses at best. It doesn't help that a programme of bodging at the lowest possible price doesnt solve the problem but simply kicks it into the futute where it deteades further and costs ten times as much to sort, and give them ten times the excuse not to. The sooner we're off the treadmill, the better.

There does seem to be a concept of doing it quick and cheap in some areas

There was a pothole just down the road from us that was done about 3 times before the sent a bigger crew to do it and it has been fine for years after that

I know there is a problem doing them in cold weather so they just patch up the worst ones
but sometimes the accountants look and think this is a way to fix them all the time

 

[All uphill]

Here's my latest collection of road signs which I have reported to the company concerned. They have committed to removing them this evening.

 

[All uphill]

I have also discovered that there are a couple of people locally who remove all the tatty advertising signs from street furniture. Good on them!

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I have also discovered that there are a couple of people locally who remove all the tatty advertising signs from street furniture. Good on them!

I do that too!

If you leave one for even a day, there will quickly be more on lamp posts and pedestrian guard rails at the corner. I cut them all off and bin them as soon as possible. Recurrence is very sporadic when that’s done.

 

[Jenkins]

A pothole I notified the council of at the end of last year has now been marked as a 10 working day fix (I'll be keeping an eye on it).

A further 3 potholes, 1 damaged road sign and a complete lane being damaged by lorries using it as an unauthorised diversion during a closure of the A14 overnight have been reported today. A further pothole would have been reported, but I found it had been marked for a 5 working day repair while I was out.

 

[annedonnelly]

I have also discovered that there are a couple of people locally who remove all the tatty advertising signs from street furniture. Good on them!

I don't mind the ones that are relevant but I complained about one advertising an event when it was still there months after the event. It wasn't even a local event.

I've also seen the Great North Bike Ride leave their direction signs out for months after the event. Obviously they can manage to get volunteers to put them up but don't bother asking anyone to remove them afterwards.

I've just replaced the signs advertising our local lunch club on the gate at the end of the road. When I do I take off the old cable ties that I used previously - I don't just rip the sign off and leave them.

 

[Pat "5mph"]

I have also discovered that there are a couple of people locally who remove all the tatty advertising signs from street furniture. Good on them!

I do that too!

If you leave one for even a day, there will quickly be more on lamp posts and pedestrian guard rails at the corner. I cut them all off and bin them as soon as possible. Recurrence is very sporadic when that’s done.

I didn't know that doing so was allowed!
I thought the advertisers have a permit.
In my housing estate there is a hidden lane, the official sign to it is permanently hidden by a big tree.
Of course the residents have problems with deliveries, so one handy guy made a nice sign, attached the sign to some railings at the beginning of the lane.
The council took it away, saying it's not allowed because it's not an official road sign.

 

[winjim]

I thought I might report a road I was on today so I just checked the map and... what's the point?

 

[winjim]

Had to make a long car journey last week and even the A roads and motorways are full of holes. It's absurd. Hitting a crater at 70mph?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I didn't know that doing so was allowed!
I thought the advertisers have a permit.

Advertising like that is prohibited by the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (Scotland) Regulations 1984.

However, members of the public should not remove such material but report it to the local council instead. I can’t be bothered waiting for them to get around to it so I do it myself, at the very slight risk of prosecution for vandalism. I’m retired now and no longer give a monkey’s.

Besides, to prosecute me for vandalism the police would need a complainer and that complainer would have to admit to breaking the law in the first place by placing the material, so I don’t see it as very likely.