Pot hole trouble ahead for cyclists

megilleland

When is a pothole not a pothole? When it is less than one and a half inches deep, according to a new definition aimed at saving money on road maintenance.
Under the guidelines, holes that are less than 1.57 inches (40mm) in depth will no longer be repaired. Previously, holes as shallow as 0.98in (25mm) were filled in.
The cost-cutting move, by Lambeth council in south London, is set to be followed across the country with nearly three-quarters of local authorities preparing to cut their roads maintenance budgets.

More in the Daily Telegraph article here:

Pross

That sort of makes sense in as much as 40mm is the normal depth of the top surface of the road. Where it doesn't make sense (as well as the obvious safety issues) is that it is going to result in further, more costly damage to the lower layers. The depth is often less of an issue for a cyclist though (IMO), 40mm in itself is unlikely to cause a problem other than some discomfort but if the hole is about the same diameter as the contact area of the wheel it tends to become more dangerous. I suspect most potholes we encounter are already at least 40mm in depth.

Tom Butcher

I suppose it depends how many of these potholes they allow to develop - a road full of 4cm deep potholes would be pretty much unrideable on a road bike - still it might slow the traffic down a bit - always a silver lining !

on the road

Round here the definition of a pothole is one that's 10 feet deep :roll:

downfader

Makes you wnder if these cutback will lead to guerrilla-filling? I've often thought about it, macadam (sp?) is pretty cheap, lol! I can see why councils have to prioritise.

squired

I'm not surprised that this comes from Lambeth. They have some of the worst road surfaces I've ever ridden on.

spen666

The big question, is will the courts see this as a reasonable approach to maintenance.

Lambeth may eend up having to pay out lots more in compensation ( or more in insurance premiums) if the courts do not think Lambeth are acting in accordance with their legal duties

spen666

The big question, is will the courts see this as a reasonable approach to maintenance.

Lambeth may eend up having to pay out lots more in compensation ( or more in insurance premiums) if the courts do not think Lambeth are acting in accordance with their legal duties