Do public highways have to be tarmacced?

[D-Angle]

Does anyone know if a road is designated as a public highway, does it have to be covered in tarmac or can they leave it as cobblestones if they want?

I ask because the road behind our house is apparently an adopted public highway, but still has cobblestones. I thought they had to tarmac it over?

[rsvmilly]

Even some green lanes are public highways so they definitely don't need to be tarmacced.

In today's litigious times, keeping cobblestones sounds like an open invitation for the ambulance chasers. Tripping hazard, anyone?

[tvrgit]

Public roads can be surfaced in tarmac, concrete, cobbles, paviors...

Tripping hazards exist whatever surface you use - potholes in tamac, uneven cobbles, if the surface is laid properly it shouldn't make much difference.

[dilbert]

I'm certainly not an expert, but they can obviously use concrete if they want.

I'd have thought that it comes down to, "Is it a metalled road?". In addition, I'd have throught that trunk routes, are those that are metalled, rather than the other way around.

I'd have thought that a cobbled road is metalled. On the other hand, I can't see cobbling being suitable for a motorway.

I'm sure that there are standards of quality for motorway class roads, and probably other trunk roads too.

Who knows?

Edited to change;
"public highway" to "trunk route"


>> Edited by dilbert on Monday 18th July 21:59

[a2z]

There is the whole adopted/unadopted situation where the council adopts roads and maintains them etc. but in my city they are re-introducing cobblestones on some roads although they are flush pointed (less triping) and mainly used by pissed pedestrians rather than motor vehicles.

[rsvmilly]

New roads need to be to adoptable standards.

New estate roads built by developers would have to be built to these standards and be inspected by the Highways during construction. Then there is usually a protracted process where staff leave and join and the specification they insist on changes! Finally they *may* be adopted by the Highways.

It would be the developer's goal for the Highways to adopt the road otherwise they are left with an ongoing maintenance issue.

Older, existing roads don't have to be retrospectvely uprated to these standards. As I said, some of the trails used by green laners are still public highways - which means the bikes need to be taxed and insured.

[kevinday]

rsvmilly said:

As I said, some of the trails used by green laners are still public highways - which means the bikes need to be taxed and insured.

I would hope all the green lanes used are public highways (or private with permission given)

[rsvmilly]

kevinday said:

rsvmilly said: As I said, some of the trails used by green laners are still public highways - which means the bikes need to be taxed and insured. I would hope all the green lanes used are public highways (or private with permission given)

Indeed. The greenies are looking to restrict their use, though. Bar Stewards!!!


www.trf.org.uk/

[gone]

A road is defined under S 192(1) the RTA 1988 as

....any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes....

A road stretches to the boundary fences including grass verges adjacent to it incorporating pavements.

Green lanes and bridleways are roads if they have public access. They can be private tracks but on certain occasions they fall within the definition of Public places which then makes them roads!

Roads do not have to have a man made covering of anything on them to be roads.

[rsvmilly]

gone said:

A road is defined under S 192(1) the RTA 1988 as ....any highway and any other road to which the public has access, and includes bridges over which a road passes....

That's an interesting point.