Another pothole thread
Discussion
stogbandard said:
I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on road surfacing but purely by observation over the years the state of our roads isn’t helped by the type of surfacing.
Up until about 25 years ago main roads were surfaced with hot rolled asphalt - quite a robust material. Then this all changed with smoother stone mastic asphalt. It’s cheaper thinner, nice and quiet when it’s new, but it seems to get brittle quickly and any slight imperfections soon turn into potholes. I’ve seen stretches on the A14 that have lasted, maybe less than 5 years, and others where there are remaining stretches of original hot rolled asphalt that are still in pretty good condition after what must be 30 years.
Highway England / National Highways or whatever they will call themselves next, effectively banned hot rolled asphalt on its network. Only stretches that are under arms length management such as Autolink on the A19 between Thirsk and Newcastle have use hot rolled surfacing and it’s a much nicer stretch to drive on. Some local authorities have gone back to using hot rolled asphalt.
Where I live, I think the local Council employ contractors to surface our roads with crushed dog biscuits - or it may as well be, given how long it lasts.
Spot on mate.Up until about 25 years ago main roads were surfaced with hot rolled asphalt - quite a robust material. Then this all changed with smoother stone mastic asphalt. It’s cheaper thinner, nice and quiet when it’s new, but it seems to get brittle quickly and any slight imperfections soon turn into potholes. I’ve seen stretches on the A14 that have lasted, maybe less than 5 years, and others where there are remaining stretches of original hot rolled asphalt that are still in pretty good condition after what must be 30 years.
Highway England / National Highways or whatever they will call themselves next, effectively banned hot rolled asphalt on its network. Only stretches that are under arms length management such as Autolink on the A19 between Thirsk and Newcastle have use hot rolled surfacing and it’s a much nicer stretch to drive on. Some local authorities have gone back to using hot rolled asphalt.
Where I live, I think the local Council employ contractors to surface our roads with crushed dog biscuits - or it may as well be, given how long it lasts.
I've worked for the managing contractor(s) for one of NH's regional trunk road contracts for nearly a decade now. We actually can use HRA still on some circumstances, but AFAIK we have to submit a 'departure from standard' for it to be approved, and that will only typically be in areas where there are no noise-sensitive receptors, which seem to be few and far between...
Local authorities may be able to use it more easily though, but it's more difficult and expensive to lay (although if it generally lasts longer that will obviously lower the whole life cost)
I would put the argument forward that as the increased noise produced by something like HRA (perceived or actual) will be gradually offset by the reduction in vehicle noise as we move away from ICE vehicles and EV becomes more common, food for thought...
The great debate about SMA vs HRA surfaces has moved on in the last 20 years. Initially SMA had poor durability but developments in specifications have made current SMA materials much more durable. Future developments will make them even more so, particularly using some of the new bitumen technology.
Unfortunately the move to EVs will not reduce road noise from motorways and other high speed roads. At low speed it's mainly engine noise and some road/tyre noise, at higher speeds it's mainly road surface/tyre noise. An SMA or negative texture material will always be quieter than HRA as the surface characteristics mean the tyre tread blocks are vibrated less and the surface tends to absorb rather than reflect sound.
Unfortunately the move to EVs will not reduce road noise from motorways and other high speed roads. At low speed it's mainly engine noise and some road/tyre noise, at higher speeds it's mainly road surface/tyre noise. An SMA or negative texture material will always be quieter than HRA as the surface characteristics mean the tyre tread blocks are vibrated less and the surface tends to absorb rather than reflect sound.
Vlad the Imp said:
The great debate about SMA vs HRA surfaces has moved on in the last 20 years. Initially SMA had poor durability but developments in specifications have made current SMA materials much more durable. Future developments will make them even more so, particularly using some of the new bitumen technology.
Unfortunately the move to EVs will not reduce road noise from motorways and other high speed roads. At low speed it's mainly engine noise and some road/tyre noise, at higher speeds it's mainly road surface/tyre noise. An SMA or negative texture material will always be quieter than HRA as the surface characteristics mean the tyre tread blocks are vibrated less and the surface tends to absorb rather than reflect sound.
Interesting point, and at risk of slightly derailing the thread, it is true that a far higher proportion of the noise produced by vehicles travelling above low to moderate speed is tyre noise. It’s also the case that recent studies have highlighted particles from tyres and brakes becoming an increasingly significant element of the pollution mix, the trend as a result of ICE engine contributions declining as they have become ever cleaner.Unfortunately the move to EVs will not reduce road noise from motorways and other high speed roads. At low speed it's mainly engine noise and some road/tyre noise, at higher speeds it's mainly road surface/tyre noise. An SMA or negative texture material will always be quieter than HRA as the surface characteristics mean the tyre tread blocks are vibrated less and the surface tends to absorb rather than reflect sound.
All other things equal, vehicle mass is and always has been the single biggest influence on tyre noise, tyre wear and brake dust. Considering current and even realistic near future battery energy densities, it is likely to remain the case that most EV, particularly if to have any real range, are going to have to use a heavy battery. Heavy components make for a heavy car, and we do see that EV, comparing class to class are generally heavier than their ICE counterparts.
Given the inherent other advantages of EV, the issues of locally increased noise and continuing albeit different pollution, even if generally recognised as a short to medium term side effect, will not affect the revolution already underway. What will be interesting is going to be the efforts made to counter the side effect, perhaps legislated and/or localised limits on battery mass aimed at driving improvements in energy density, perhaps heavily incentivised increasing levels of autonomy, permitting EV to evolve to become slower, safer and shared (think johnny cabs..).
Here’s hoping the UK government and councils pull their collective fingers out quick to sort out the increasingly decrepit roads. If not, the alternative, regardless of which way is jumped with respect to ICE and EV, will be that all the lovely 19” plus wheels and low profile tyres will have to become a thing of the past….
I’m not trying to start another argument about EV, there’s way too much of that on PH already. I will probably one at some point, probably a used I-Pace or such for the Mrs, but personally I plan to continue to blast about with my V6, my two V8s and my beautiful V12 on the far less busy and less potholed roads of the South of France, where I am lucky enough to be early-retiring to (sorry guys!)
I recently hit a very large pothole here in Essex and needed a new tyre. This is not the first time but for the first time I decided to claim. The claim was refused because when they first inspected the pothole (a week before I hit it) they decided it was not dangerous. After I claimed, they returned to the hole, decided it was now dangerous enough to repair and rejected my claim anyway because it hadn't been that bad on their previous visit! Needless to say, they did not mark the hole to warn motorists it was there on that first occasion. I wrote this email in response. It won't get me anywhere but I certainly felt better afterwards:
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your (rather predictable) verdict on my damage claim.
I find your assessment process to be rather ridiculous. Someone arrives at a pothole, makes an arbitrary decision as to whether or not that pothole is 'dangerous' then, if not, jumps back in their vehicle and drives away (presumably careful to avoid driving into it themselves). No warning or indication is left behind to warn motorists the hole is there, allowing countless people such as myself to damage their vehicles driving into it.
Then, you wait until someone makes a claim involving the pothole before driving back out to it and deciding if the successive impacts of unwitting motorists have worsened it sufficiently for you to perform the repair you should have performed in the first place. In the meantime, the pothole may have worsened to category 2, 3 or 4 but this is irrelevant - provided it was listed as a category 1 in the first place, any claim made against damage caused by the pothole is automatically void regardless of how bad it was when the motorist actually hit it. In other words, if you had not made an initial assessment and my incident report was your first indication the hole was there, my claim may have been valid. Where is the justice in this for motorists such as myself?
The fact you were aware of this pothole a full week before I hit it and did nothing whatsoever to warn anyone, let alone repair it, just makes the whole matter even worse. I am fortunate - I can afford a new tyre. There are countless people out there struggling to make ends meet at the moment who cannot afford to repair damage to their vehicles. By this yardstick, every pothole out there large enough to ruin a tyre is therefore 'dangerous' if only to their ability to pay bills and buy food. (As for cyclists/motorcyclists, you are fortunate none rode into this hole or you would be facing a personal injury claim as well - it was plenty dangerous from their perspectives).
The roads around here (Layer de la Haye and southern Colchester) are truly woeful at the moment. There is a pothole on Straight rd almost large enough to park in. I appreciate you do not possess unlimited funds but I'm certain you can do a better job than this. At least paint around the holes in a luminous paint so people have an opportunity to avoid them.
This is the 3rd time I have needed a new tyre due to potholes in the vicinity of Maldon over the past year - on one occasion I needed a new wheel also. My stepson has needed a new wheel and two new tyres on the roads around Colchester in the past 12 months. Of all these incidents, mine was the first time either of us decided to claim as we had a certain amount of sympathy for the scale of the issue. Now I discover your claims process is a loaded dice to the point that I wonder what percentage of claims you actually honour. Enough is enough. From now on I will be claiming for each and every incident and encouraging all family members, friends and work colleagues to do the same. That is a lot of people to fob off, many of whom have also suffered damage.
I will give you a week to respond. At that point, I will be seeking legal advice from Slater and Gordon. Do your job.
Regards,
Niall McMahon
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your (rather predictable) verdict on my damage claim.
I find your assessment process to be rather ridiculous. Someone arrives at a pothole, makes an arbitrary decision as to whether or not that pothole is 'dangerous' then, if not, jumps back in their vehicle and drives away (presumably careful to avoid driving into it themselves). No warning or indication is left behind to warn motorists the hole is there, allowing countless people such as myself to damage their vehicles driving into it.
Then, you wait until someone makes a claim involving the pothole before driving back out to it and deciding if the successive impacts of unwitting motorists have worsened it sufficiently for you to perform the repair you should have performed in the first place. In the meantime, the pothole may have worsened to category 2, 3 or 4 but this is irrelevant - provided it was listed as a category 1 in the first place, any claim made against damage caused by the pothole is automatically void regardless of how bad it was when the motorist actually hit it. In other words, if you had not made an initial assessment and my incident report was your first indication the hole was there, my claim may have been valid. Where is the justice in this for motorists such as myself?
The fact you were aware of this pothole a full week before I hit it and did nothing whatsoever to warn anyone, let alone repair it, just makes the whole matter even worse. I am fortunate - I can afford a new tyre. There are countless people out there struggling to make ends meet at the moment who cannot afford to repair damage to their vehicles. By this yardstick, every pothole out there large enough to ruin a tyre is therefore 'dangerous' if only to their ability to pay bills and buy food. (As for cyclists/motorcyclists, you are fortunate none rode into this hole or you would be facing a personal injury claim as well - it was plenty dangerous from their perspectives).
The roads around here (Layer de la Haye and southern Colchester) are truly woeful at the moment. There is a pothole on Straight rd almost large enough to park in. I appreciate you do not possess unlimited funds but I'm certain you can do a better job than this. At least paint around the holes in a luminous paint so people have an opportunity to avoid them.
This is the 3rd time I have needed a new tyre due to potholes in the vicinity of Maldon over the past year - on one occasion I needed a new wheel also. My stepson has needed a new wheel and two new tyres on the roads around Colchester in the past 12 months. Of all these incidents, mine was the first time either of us decided to claim as we had a certain amount of sympathy for the scale of the issue. Now I discover your claims process is a loaded dice to the point that I wonder what percentage of claims you actually honour. Enough is enough. From now on I will be claiming for each and every incident and encouraging all family members, friends and work colleagues to do the same. That is a lot of people to fob off, many of whom have also suffered damage.
I will give you a week to respond. At that point, I will be seeking legal advice from Slater and Gordon. Do your job.
Regards,
Niall McMahon
That picture neatly illustrates what's wrong with the whole pothole filling process and why most council's policy of saying the pothole wasn't there when they last inspected it is merely a set of excuses not to pay up.
The fundamental duty of the authority is to maintain the road in a safe condition. Anyone with any highways knowledge would look at the pothole and the material surrounding it and know that the whole area is on the verge of failure. Just filling in the pothole does nothing as all the surrounding material is about to fail and will take the repair with it when it fails. Similarly anyone with some knowledge would look at the material and know sometime before a pothole appeared that it will fail shortly and needs replacing before a potentially dangerous pothole appears.
Rant over.
The fundamental duty of the authority is to maintain the road in a safe condition. Anyone with any highways knowledge would look at the pothole and the material surrounding it and know that the whole area is on the verge of failure. Just filling in the pothole does nothing as all the surrounding material is about to fail and will take the repair with it when it fails. Similarly anyone with some knowledge would look at the material and know sometime before a pothole appeared that it will fail shortly and needs replacing before a potentially dangerous pothole appears.
Rant over.
wonder where all this cash seems to have disappeared to???
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-to-fix-...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/funding-to-fix-...
Vlad the Imp said:
That picture neatly illustrates what's wrong with the whole pothole filling process and why most council's policy of saying the pothole wasn't there when they last inspected it is merely a set of excuses not to pay up.
The fundamental duty of the authority is to maintain the road in a safe condition. Anyone with any highways knowledge would look at the pothole and the material surrounding it and know that the whole area is on the verge of failure. Just filling in the pothole does nothing as all the surrounding material is about to fail and will take the repair with it when it fails. Similarly anyone with some knowledge would look at the material and know sometime before a pothole appeared that it will fail shortly and needs replacing before a potentially dangerous pothole appears.
Rant over.
That's why it is important to report potholes to your council, then they can't claim not to know about it.The fundamental duty of the authority is to maintain the road in a safe condition. Anyone with any highways knowledge would look at the pothole and the material surrounding it and know that the whole area is on the verge of failure. Just filling in the pothole does nothing as all the surrounding material is about to fail and will take the repair with it when it fails. Similarly anyone with some knowledge would look at the material and know sometime before a pothole appeared that it will fail shortly and needs replacing before a potentially dangerous pothole appears.
Rant over.
I take it you have reported this one haven't you?
The state of the roads here in the U.K is pitiful, as other have pointed out the management of road surfacing programmes/products used seems to run by clowns. I’ve seen it countless times where they come along slap some half baked surface down and don’t even bother raising the ironwork. Therefore creating bumps! They also let utilities companies to lash in their kit and leave truly shocking repairs without pulling them back to sort it. I’ve seen cakes iced better than some of the road refit jobs here.
Additionally, it appears we no longer council employed highways workers. Instead it’s all been outsourced to private companies. Not sure how that works, pot holes rarely get repaired it seems, and when they do its a right old performance! Years ago we had trucks (the occupants of which were often branded lazy, and were clearly identifiable by the various copies of the daily sport rammed in front of the windscreen). However, back then we didn’t have anywhere near the same problems. I suspect largely due to fact we had a trucks with tarmac to infill and hot tar to seal (preventing premature breakout) constantly out and about. Now we have some idiot in a suit with a clipboard going around measuring them to see if they can away with leaving them unfixed.
It really grinds my gears when you see the old bill going around preaching that vision zero rubbish. They seem to be very vocal on anything they perceive to be dangerous on the roads, with notable silence on the actual state of the road surfaces. Last summer, up and down the country they were persecuting farmers hauling grain from direct from combines un-sheeted, and continually seem to be going after transit tipper drivers carrying a ton of un-sheeted sand etc. it’s not going come off, and if something happens to cause the load to move, some silly lightweight sheet isn’t stopping it!!! Does anyone know who actually gave the police this vision zero mandate? I’ve never voted on it and would far rather see traffic police out on mass at night hauling in things like 100k Range Rover or plant which are being stolen on a daily basis, I suspect in the middle of the night.
Additionally, it appears we no longer council employed highways workers. Instead it’s all been outsourced to private companies. Not sure how that works, pot holes rarely get repaired it seems, and when they do its a right old performance! Years ago we had trucks (the occupants of which were often branded lazy, and were clearly identifiable by the various copies of the daily sport rammed in front of the windscreen). However, back then we didn’t have anywhere near the same problems. I suspect largely due to fact we had a trucks with tarmac to infill and hot tar to seal (preventing premature breakout) constantly out and about. Now we have some idiot in a suit with a clipboard going around measuring them to see if they can away with leaving them unfixed.
It really grinds my gears when you see the old bill going around preaching that vision zero rubbish. They seem to be very vocal on anything they perceive to be dangerous on the roads, with notable silence on the actual state of the road surfaces. Last summer, up and down the country they were persecuting farmers hauling grain from direct from combines un-sheeted, and continually seem to be going after transit tipper drivers carrying a ton of un-sheeted sand etc. it’s not going come off, and if something happens to cause the load to move, some silly lightweight sheet isn’t stopping it!!! Does anyone know who actually gave the police this vision zero mandate? I’ve never voted on it and would far rather see traffic police out on mass at night hauling in things like 100k Range Rover or plant which are being stolen on a daily basis, I suspect in the middle of the night.
I’ve just driven along the A58 to Bury - a total of 17 miles. I don’t drive very much at all these days outside of my own immediate locality so to say I was shocked at the number and severity of the holes is an understatement.
To anyone following behind I must have looked drunk, weaving all over the road. I was having to concentrate extra hard to check the depth of what I might hit.
I’d say in that 17 miles there were over 50 potholes that I saw and any one of those if I’d hit it would probably have broken a wheel or damaged the suspension.
I’ve honestly never seen so many bad holes.
To anyone following behind I must have looked drunk, weaving all over the road. I was having to concentrate extra hard to check the depth of what I might hit.
I’d say in that 17 miles there were over 50 potholes that I saw and any one of those if I’d hit it would probably have broken a wheel or damaged the suspension.
I’ve honestly never seen so many bad holes.
I’m sure I’m not the only one to now drive scanning the road surface ahead constantly (during daylight) and best as I can after dark, feeling so disappointed/angry when I miss a pothole.
Im sure that nowadays I and many others are not paying complete road attention as we once did, due to trying to be aware and avoid the next dangerous hole in the road especially on a motorcycle......
Im sure that nowadays I and many others are not paying complete road attention as we once did, due to trying to be aware and avoid the next dangerous hole in the road especially on a motorcycle......
It is a tricky issue
it is obvious that councils can ill afford to spend money on this and the new Chancellor is not helping by squeezing them ever harder. I get it, but sorry man, this sort of stuff needs work.
Roads are a very easy thing to ignore, hence no litter picking, no hedge trimming or road-sign clearing, and obviously no pot hole filling.
Most temp repairs are just that and on some holes literally last weeks, they are pointless and a total waste of money and only done for box ticking and data.
it is obvious that councils can ill afford to spend money on this and the new Chancellor is not helping by squeezing them ever harder. I get it, but sorry man, this sort of stuff needs work.
Roads are a very easy thing to ignore, hence no litter picking, no hedge trimming or road-sign clearing, and obviously no pot hole filling.
Most temp repairs are just that and on some holes literally last weeks, they are pointless and a total waste of money and only done for box ticking and data.
Has anyone had, or heard of anyone having any joy claiming for pothole damage from the local council?
I have found this advice from the AA….
https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/potho...
I have found this advice from the AA….
https://www.theaa.com/breakdown-cover/advice/potho...
Gassing Station | Roads | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff