Gravel / resurfacing on roads

[Dr Mike Oxgreen]

4rephill said:

I had a very irate (young) driver behind Me the other day, weaving all over the place, flapping his arms around and shouting abuse at Me whilst sat right on My rear bumper because I was driving slowly on a stretch of resurfaced road to reduce the amount of stones being thrown up.

After a while I got fed up with his remonstrations and so I did what he wanted and sped up a bit!

Strangely enough, this didn't seem to appease him either! - Although he did seem to want to leave a larger gap to Me all of a sudden!

There's just no pleasing some people!

Are you God? If not, why do you always spell the word "me" or "my" with a capital "M"?

[herewego]

rallen said:

I sent them this:

• ****************************************

I am writing to complain about the recent road resurfacing on Portsmouth Road near Cobham and on the Copsem Ln, A244, towards Esher.

The nature and quality of the resurfacing is appalling and dangerous. The contractors literally threw gravel on the surface of the road and did not press it down resulting in stone chips being ejected in all directions by oncoming traffic.

There were insufficient warnings of the works and as a result in two cases we found ourselves on these terrible road conditions.

Many days after the "works" and we can still see a large quantity of loose gravel on the sidewalks, the pavements, on house drives and in the middle of the two lanes.

The conditions are extremely dangerous for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, and causing considerable damage to all vehicles.

Personally we have had a windscreen chip on the Portsmouth Road and also a stone chip lodged in our brake disks causing a huge noise and mechanical damage to the car. In addition dozens of these stone chips have got embedded into my tyres causing excessive wear where each of these tyres costs £160.

I find it unacceptable that you either approved this kind of road repairs or that your contractor left the roads in such bad condition. I believe you should identify the person within your council who is personally responsible for this decision and reprimand him/her if not outright fire him.

Yours faithfully

....

How could the stone chippings cause excessive wear?

[Riley Blue]

herewego said:

How could the stone chippings cause excessive wear?

Agreed - this bit is just plain daft:

"In addition dozens of these stone chips have got embedded into my tyres causing excessive wear where each of these tyres costs £160."

[PhilboSE]

doogz said:

Some contractors appeared on Friday and applied this 'surface dressing' to our road, it was re-surfaced last year, and was fantastic until they appeared the other day and ruined it.

They gave me a leaflet explaining the reasons and benefits. I'll scan it in later and post it up.

Must be the season for it.

They've just done a couple of roads down my way in Surrey, basically put down an even coating of fine gravel about 5mm deep across the entire width of the road. It's all bone dry, absolutely no suggestion of tarmac to bind it together. Cars driving down it generate a huge cloud of grey dust behind them as they go.

Must be really really dodgy on a pedalbike (of which they are many, as I live in the "cycling capital of Surrey").

Ironically, of all the roads that needed attention down my way, this particular road would not have been top of my list.

[Neonblau]

rallen said:

I sent them this:


I find it unacceptable that you either approved this kind of road repairs or that your contractor left the roads in such bad condition. I believe you should identify the person within your council who is personally responsible for this decision and reprimand him/her if not outright fire him.


....

What do you want them to do? You haven't invited a response. They're hardly going to sack someone because a guy writes to them about little stones in his tyres.

[rallen]

Riley Blue said:

Agreed - this bit is just plain daft:

"In addition dozens of these stone chips have got embedded into my tyres causing excessive wear where each of these tyres costs £160."

Are you serious? You cannot understand why having dozens of sharp stones cutting and getting embedded into your tyres is actually bad?

[rallen]

Neonblau said:

What do you want them to do? You haven't invited a response. They're hardly going to sack someone because a guy writes to them about little stones in his tyres.

Unless there are plenty of complaints relating to the conditions: there were cyclists being hit (actually I thought they were suicidal), there were windscreens being hit (including mine), paintwork on cars got damaged - I hope that some of these people also complained. They may take notice.

[airbrakes]

Its disgusting, it really is. No other words for it. even when they use proper tarmac, they do such a pisspoor job of repairing holes that the resulting bump from the raised/sunken patch is just as pad as the pothole. what I've noticed increasingly, which is even worse, is large (ie 40ftx8ft) patches that appear to have been laid and then left all ripply with no rolling whatsoever, its like driving over a fking washboard. How about, instead of employing the cheapest, sttiest contractors they can find to make the roads worse, the backroom managerial self-serving arrogant pigs take their noses out of the salary/bonus trough. Just a thought but alas its just going to be frontline services squeezed further instead.
Where I live, no matter which road I take from my house to a bordering town, they are all like driving on the surface of the moon. I'm not kidding - large bits of NSL road you have to drive on at 35mph to stop your teeth falling out.
My Discovery was perfect when I got it 9 months ago, now it squeaks and rattles like mad inside and it'll never be the same again
I have a good mind to invite the council bigwigs round and take them for a drive. Firstly, I would ask if they would be happy to pound their car to sttery just trying to commute every day at a speed above walking pace. Then I'll ask them to place £7000 worth of council computers on my trailer and see if towing it makes them wince as much as I do when my equally fragile steam engine gets jolted about despite my best swerving/braking efforts.

[rallen]

OK, I would assume a Discovery is made to ride on very uneven terrain and on dirt tracks so it should be immune to potholes? Better not buy a Discovery then

But I agree with the condition of the roads and the numerous potholes, ruining suspensions, wheels and tyres and the cars too. Roads in Greece are much better than in Esher and Oxshott, probably the most expensive areas in the UK. What are they spending the money on?

[Riley Blue]

rallen said:

Riley Blue said:

Agreed - this bit is just plain daft:

"In addition dozens of these stone chips have got embedded into my tyres causing excessive wear where each of these tyres costs £160."

Are you serious? You cannot understand why having dozens of sharp stones cutting and getting embedded into your tyres is actually bad?

Totally serious. You considerably exaggerate the problem - if a problem is what it is, which I doubt.

[airbrakes]

It is meant to drive very rough tracks.. at off roading speed. No car is designed to constantly handle the roads round here at anything above 40mph, it's like Belgian pave in places. It's a Land Rover on beam axles, not a bloody Baja buggy.
Why the fk should I have to crawl along at 20mph on a supposedly NSL road when I have the trailer on, all because the council can't get their st together? There's driving to the conditions and then there's taking the absolute piss.

[rallen]

I believe we have neglected our infrastructure in the UK and we still are neglecting it - energy, roads, trains, hospitals, schools, shipyards, steel factories etc. I believe we should not be expecting people to "learn to drive around the potholes" but rather ask "why are there so many potholes and why do we spend our money on everything else except on ourselves, since we have paid it in the first place". I mean if someone knocks on your door and demands £250 which is the monthly council tax payment, would you not want to know how he is going to spend it? And would you not want him to spend the money on you and your family and on your own village, since you have paid it, before he spends it on projects that you will not benefit from?

[streaky]

Dr Mike Oxgreen said:

4rephill said:

I had a very irate (young) driver behind Me the other day, weaving all over the place, flapping his arms around and shouting abuse at Me whilst sat right on My rear bumper because I was driving slowly on a stretch of resurfaced road to reduce the amount of stones being thrown up.

After a while I got fed up with his remonstrations and so I did what he wanted and sped up a bit!

Strangely enough, this didn't seem to appease him either! - Although he did seem to want to leave a larger gap to Me all of a sudden!

There's just no pleasing some people!

Are you God? If not, why do you always spell the word "me" or "my" with a capital "M"?

Probably a a Driving God, or similar superior deity. Common as muck, on here.

Streaky

[rallen]

Riley Blue said:

Totally serious. You considerably exaggerate the problem - if a problem is what it is, which I doubt.

How is having sharp stones cutting into your tyres and embedding into the grooves, and never coming out, not a problem?

I did not say this was the biggest problem. I presume the biggest problems in order of priority would be the cyclists who are risking bodily injury, then the motorists that can get injured by flying projectiles (we had to roll up the windows), and then mechanical or decorative damage to the vehicles, like paintwork, windscreens, brakes and tyres. And I could mention what others have mentioned, skidding, but I did not experience that, so I cannot comment, but I did experience, first hand, everything else I mentioned.

[Riley Blue]

rallen said:

Riley Blue said:

Totally serious. You considerably exaggerate the problem - if a problem is what it is, which I doubt.

How is having sharp stones cutting into your tyres and embedding into the grooves, and never coming out, not a problem?

Because it doesn't happen to the degree you would have us believe it does.

[anonymous-user]

Well... after contributing to this thread a week or so ago, I just yesterday witnessed 'surface dressing' claim it's first victim in my presence.

I was on my way back from Windermere and was horrified to discover yet another huge stretch of an A-road had just been done with it... I was really pissed off as I have spent the last few weeks avoiding roads in my 'good cars' that I knew had been coated, but this one snuck up on me and there was no way round apart from an hour long detour which I wasn't going to do.

It was really, really badly dressed. Bald patches already appearing where the car wheel tracks are and everything else covered in loads of loose stuff. Awful.

So I trundle along at 35mph with gritted teeth listening to 'ting'... 'ping'... 'ting ting'... 'ting' as the gravel rattled off the panels of my car... hoping it would end soon, when I get overtaken by a chap on a 6 month old Ducati Monster. He didn't fly past me like an idiot, was just doing 40-45mph and was probably a little bored with my low speed after following me for a while.

You guessed it... the very next corner, right in front of me, he gets his wheels onto a big patch of completely loose 'dressing' and the front end washes right out and he goes straight into the hedge, slides across the road towards oncoming traffic on his back, while his bike bounces back from the hedge and skates down the road emitting the most horrible scraping noises as it makes its way across the delightful road surface.

I stop and stick the hazard lights on and get out to help him up and the car coming the other way does the same.

He is ok as he was being really careful and probably only went down at about 30-35 mph, but is really shook up, and his bike... Christ... what a mess down one side.

He was more embarrassed than anything else having just overtaken me then crashed right in front of me, but he managed to say "there is fking gravel all over this corner!".

Anyway, stood his bike up with his help and it started again so after checking a few things he set off slowly, just to get the bike out of the carriageway more than anything.

South Lakeland Council: Your contractors are total cowboys and I hope this guy gets a new Ducati off you, you bunch of s.

[rallen]

35 mph?!!! We were doing max 10-15mph.

[PanzerCommander]

I understand why its done but its still a pain in the backside, it takes no prisoners, be they the innocent, like the Ducatti rider mentioned in a previous post or the not so innocent like the bloke that I know doing 30mph over the speed limit (50mph zone that until five or so years ago was NSL) on a feshly (few days old) dressed road. He swerves to avoid a deer and then realises that there is no grip, the car promptly spins out, hits a curb and rolls over a couple of times (yes it did actually happen).

It does make you wonder that the council doesn't care because they save so much money not doing it properly when claims do come in (even for a trashed bike fairing) that they pay up without question because it costs less in total than doing it properly.

[AJI]

PanzerCommander said:

....the council doesn't care ....

This part is very true.

Its all about cost cutting measures at the moment, this seems to be their whole policy. They seem to think that the 'disclaimer' signs they put up when surface dressing is applied will protect them from prosecution.

OK I accept that the public have complained heavily about potholes etc. and that this has made national news on many occasions, but simple badly done budget surface dressing is not the answer.
Surface dressing can actually work and can be an effective measure IF ITS DONE PROPERLY.
Like I mentioned before, in just about every case I've seen it done, it is not done properly and leaves the road in a dangerous condition for way too long.

The councils just need to receive many many more complaints about it, each complaint has to be logged at the council and then this information is freely available on the freedoms of information act. And this is where the journalists can pick up on the issue and report on it; and then a minister may think his/her vote numbers may drop in the next election and only then would he/she put pressure on to the council for them to put pressure on to their contractors to do it properly.

[Dr Clive]

AJI said:

This part is very true.

Its all about cost cutting measures at the moment, this seems to be their whole policy. They seem to think that the 'disclaimer' signs they put up when surface dressing is applied will protect them from prosecution.

OK I accept that the public have complained heavily about potholes etc. and that this has made national news on many occasions, but simple badly done budget surface dressing is not the answer.
Surface dressing can actually work and can be an effective measure IF ITS DONE PROPERLY.
Like I mentioned before, in just about every case I've seen it done, it is not done properly and leaves the road in a dangerous condition for way too long.

The councils just need to receive many many more complaints about it, each complaint has to be logged at the council and then this information is freely available on the freedoms of information act. And this is where the journalists can pick up on the issue and report on it; and then a minister may think his/her vote numbers may drop in the next election and only then would he/she put pressure on to the council for them to put pressure on to their contractors to do it properly.

Growing up in rural Suffolk in the 50's and 60's (I started driving in 1965) almost all of the local roads were of the surface-dressed type, and re-done fairly regularly. And it was done properly in those days - the right amount of bitumen, the right amount of (the right kind of) gravel, and rolled-in properly. The period of "loose gravel" was generally short, despite the general lack of traffic in those days. I also had the impression that once bedded-in, these surfaces actually provided more grip than an asphalt surface (being more "knobbly"), especially in the wet.