We will now have to pay to have pot holes fixed?

jthef

Just seen this I hope it does not catch on. :shock:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/116 ... ys-council

But we do get our name on a roadside signs “in honour” of our contribution.
(it not the 1st of April is it?)

spen666

Council are legally responsible for maintaining the non trunk roads and cannot simply say they will not do it unless people pay for it AGAIN

simple_salmon

Daily Express prints BS story to support its own agenda - SHOCK.

unCivilServant

simple_salmon wrote:

Daily Express prints BS story to support its own agenda - SHOCK.

So you're saying the DE made the whole thing up?

I've not been back to Oxford for over 10 years, but remember it as a potholey place when I lived there in the mid-'90s. It was the first place I knew on-road cycle lanes: used to joke that when the Council couldn't be bothered with fixing the holes--which were usually on the nearside of the road--they'd just designate it a cycle lane. Get that authentic feeling of a rough mountain trail without leaving the urban environment...

IIRC paying out compensation for injuries/vehicle damage due to potholes is more expensive than repairing them, but of course the money tends to come out of separate 'pots'.

It's possible that OCC's funds went down the same black hole as Iceland's economy, in which case I'd have some sympathy, but just saying "Not enough money, we ain't going to carry out our responsibilities" is pretty poor.

simple_salmon

I'm saying that the DE is quite happy to fit the 'facts' of a story into its own RW agenda - much like most 'news'papers do.

Personally I'd be prepared to bet that there is more to the story than printed here.

unCivilServant

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm saying that the DE is quite happy to fit the 'facts' of a story into its own RW agenda - much like most 'news'papers do.

Personally I'd be prepared to bet that there is more to the story than printed here.

Oh right, so you actually know the facts are different?--you're quite at liberty to print them here.

Or because it's got an *evil right-wing agenda* it must be assumed to be wrong in this case? I'm not so naive as to never believe that 'papers exaggerate stuff--and that goes for pretty much all of them, whatever 'wing' they have--but that's a bit different from automatically discounting everything.

I've seen a few articles from the DE's campaign (we get press cuttings at work, so no I'm not a shareholder). While their previous on potholes has tended to mention the 'damage to cars' angle more, they've also featured a cyclist who was pretty badly injured by one (no doubt if he'd known he was helping the DE pursue its "agenda", he'd have refused to be interviewed).

A similar story also appears in the local paper, so unless it's a sinister plant to drum up sales for the DE in some way it would seem (along with my recollection as someone who has ACTUALLY LIVED in Oxford) to be a genuine local issue.

Potholes are one of the few areas which ALL road-users can agree to be A Bad Thing. I would imagine the prospect of LAs taking money on the basis of being obliged to fulfil duties then not fulfilling them--without decent explanation--would also be of pretty universal concern.

Porgy

I'm wondering if the council will change it's mind about not being able to afford to fix the roads when it is inundated with claims for damages due to their potholes.

simple_salmon

No, I don't know the facts; I wrote a lighthearted opinion on the stories that DE run ('OMG the World is going to end tonight') based on previous experience of reading that absolute RW piece of trash.

I indicated that is was a lighthearted comment by the use of a smiley at the end of my sentance. My opinion was tinged with the knowledge that what Spen wrote was probably correct and that, therefore, there was probably more to the story since it's unlikely that a council will simply act in an illegal manner.

I'm also not so niaive to believe that local papers won't print anything that fills the pages without first checking the facts.

unCivilServant

simple_salmon wrote:

No, I don't know the facts; I wrote a lighthearted opinion on the stories that DE run ('OMG the World is going to end tonight') based on previous experience of reading that absolute RW piece of trash.

If "OMG..." stories are going to render a whole publication's output discardable no matter what, then we'd have to reject ALL journalism--& yes I've seen a couple of shockers in the Indy, for example.

I indicated that is was a lighthearted comment by the use of a smiley at the end of my sentance. My opinion was tinged with the knowledge that what Spen wrote was probably correct and that, therefore, there was probably more to the story since it's unlikely that a council will simply act in an illegal manner.

I'm afraid you are naive if you believe that. What do you think the Local Govt. Ombudsman is for? Never heard of a court case where the LA is found to have acted unlawfully in some way or other? And note that no-one is saying the council is just refusing to pay for repairs, in the reports the quotes mitigate the refusal by talking about lack of funds. If the aim was to paint LAs as work-shy parasites, they wouldn't have bothered with that bit.

I'm also not so niaive to believe that local papers won't print anything that fills the pages without first checking the facts.

See my previous post re taking EVERYTHING with a pinch of salt. A pinch of salt...critical judgment, eg are there holes or inconsistencies in the story. But ultimately, once you simply discount all national papers as sensationalist and all local ones as full of probable untruths, the only means you are left with to get an idea of what DID happen is to put bugs on Colin Cook and everyone else in Oxford who's been quoted, and build a time machine round the place to find out definitively who said what. Good luck with that.

And the point still stands--whether you think the DE is the gospel or the bogroll of the Devil, there is an issue for everyone re 1) unrepaired potholes and 2) what the relationship is supposed to be between the public (as obligatory funders) and the services it gets in return.

Porgy--quite!

James_London

Stop bickering and report a pothole today! London only AFAIK, sorry...

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/roadusers/reporta ... t/934.aspx
0845 305 1234

kingstongraham

Just heard the guy who thought it up interviewed on radio 5live. He just thought it was a jokey way of highlighting the problem and getting some coverage. His take was that it would be cheaper for the council to fix them than to pay for the compensation claims.

jrduquemin

If I had to pay to get potholes fixed where I live, I'd expect to be able to advise on how I want it done. Not patched as they typically are. This only lasts a short period of time due to weather conditions and moronic car drivers who use my estate as a race track. I'd end up having to pay to get it done again a few months down the line.

STEFANOS4784

Taxpayers already pay for pothole repairs through their council tax. And they contribute billions more through road tax payments

What's 'road tax'. I've heard of vehicle exise duty

unCivilServant

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

Taxpayers already pay for pothole repairs through their council tax. And they contribute billions more through road tax payments

What's 'road tax'. I've heard of vehicle exise duty

Also, IStR that only 20% of LA revenue/spending actually comes from Council Tax (or business rates)--the rest comes from central taxation ie income tax etc.. We are ALL paying for Oxford to repair its potholes

The more you look at it, the murkier it gets.

downfader

..maybe their councillers should take a bit of a pay cut?

Two of my local ones are on £100k a year for example

spen666

downfader wrote:

..maybe their councillers should take a bit of a pay cut?

Two of my local ones are on £100k a year for example

I'd be very suprised if the councillors are on that much.

Council employees maybe on that sort of salary

dilemna

Round my way in the Fens a road servicing our small local town was riddled with potholes and craters and was severely subsided. It had been gradullay getting worst over about 4 years. The local Huntingdonshire District Council just refused to repair it. It resembled the runway in downtown Baghdad when Saddam was overthrown. The 2 mile stretch was finally closed for 3 months last year for reconstruction and resurfacing basically a new road not a cheap chippings job. We now have a new supemarket on the edge of town. The only reason Tesco got planning permission, as all the residents were against Tesco, was if Tesco paid for a new road they would be granted permission to build a supermarket. We already have a perfectly good huge Co-Op. The local council was so cash strapped they couldn't afford to even patch the hundreds of holes. So we have got a new road but at the cost of a Tescos on the edge of town. The Co-Op will now probably close . Indeed a very high price to pay.

beverick

STEFANOS4784 wrote:

Taxpayers already pay for pothole repairs through their council tax. And they contribute billions more through road tax payments

What's 'road tax'. I've heard of vehicle exise duty

It's what real people call what the pedants know as VED.

bompington

unCivilServant wrote:

I would imagine the prospect of LAs taking money on the basis of being obliged to fulfil duties then not fulfilling them--without decent explanation--would also be of pretty universal concern.

Now I'm really confused, surely Armstrong's not responsible for potholes as well? Maybe it's him who makes my tyres have punctures too...