Roads iin a poor state

Gambatte wrote:

gandalfcp wrote:

I blame cyclists for not paying any road tax.

I blame motorists for not paying any road tax

I blame pedants who fail to notice that even the official government websites refer to vehicle excise duty as road/car tax.

And how do you genii think that the goods will get from the station to your local shop? A little man on his bike towing a trailer behind it with the pallet on?
Railways came into being, because they could transport goods faster than on the canal system. The canal system because it was faster than the roads at the time. The roads are used now because they're faster than the railways, let alone less expensive.
Railways are good at moving a heavy load of one product at a time.
What size of truck is acceptable? 44, 42, 18, 7.5 tonners? Transit/Sprinter? Escort/Astra? Fiesta/Corsa based?
The artics take ~25 pallets, up to 40 if they're double decked, take them off the road and put them into something smaller? You might notice that'll increase the number of vehicle movements needed, the amount of road space taken up, the amount of fuel used to move it too.
"Let's tax these horrible lorries more"
OK, let's do it. Now who pays the bill in the end? Have you got much in the bank? Fuel duty has just gone up by 2p/litre, come April, the 10p in the pound tax band vanishes, wheat prices are soaring, so the price of bread & meat will be going up as it is.
Also, about 8% of the UK workforce is employed by the logistics industry.
I see that the "Let's knock the 4x4" brigade has hopped onto this band waggon too. Care to check the weight of say, a bus. How much road tax should they pay?
What about a people carrier? I bet they're not much lighter than a horrible 4x4.
That idiot Livingstone's £25 tax on band G vehicles doesn't just affect your Chelsea Tractor, check what else is in band G, there are some 800 types of vehicle in that category, like Kia Sorrento Diesel 2.5 (Hmm, nasty 4x4, driven by rich people?) Renault Grand Espace, a variety of Merc, Audi, Saab, Ford, Vauxhall etc estates.
His great idea to tax all non-Euro5 compliant lorries £250 for coming inside the M25? Better start to get used to the idea of a depopulated or starving London, because your average person isn't going to be able to afford to work there. Ever tried London's public transport in the rush hour?
The whole transport system (Note it's a system!) needs more spending on it, perhaps the millions wasted on trying to get 50% of the school leavers into university? The extra few billions that dear Tony has promised to hand over to the EU for them to fritter away on MP's expenses & CAP fraud?

Always Tyred wrote:

Laurent7 wrote:

I have found that the state of roads in Britain are in such a poor state that only a bike with 2inch thick tyres is any good. Typically you will find trenches poorly backfilled that are either too high or too low, the usual potholes and cracks, drain and manhole covers that are much higher or lower that the surrounding tarmac and often there are great holes and crevices around these man and drain holes exposing metal edges which are lethal for cyclists.
It is time that some of the vast billions raised from fuel duty, VAT and vehicle tax was put int keeping Britains road network up to a reasonable standard.

I blame subcontracting. Around where I live, the jobs simply haven't been finished to any standard. Instead of rolling patches flat and sealing the edges, they have just been flattened with one of those hand held machines that bounces, and left at that.

Within 12 months, they are all breaking up again because eachcar tyre that hits them starts boucing. And for those 12 months, you need suspension forks to cycle over them anyway.

I'm sure that they got paid to fix the holes properly, not to stand around comparing intellects.

As a cyclist, you experience the very worst of Britain. That's it. I'm leaving.

Yeah ! I won't be far behind you .
Another windy few lines in the offing here !
The bouncy machines are vibrating rollers or whacker plates depending on the area to be whacked .
A misconception is that cyclists don't pay road tax . Most bikers of my acquaintance have cars and therefore pay road tax ( I presume ? ) .
When road tax was first introduced way back when ALL revenue raised was earmarked for the building of new and maintaining the standard of existing roads . No other purpose whatsoever was mooted . Now , of course , it is but a paltry fraction of a fraction of that .
It's another mystery to me why it is that the Germans , French and Swiss - most of Europe and the rest of the world I'd suppose - are able to repair roads to a standard that are flawless to the tread of a bicycle whereby you wouldn't be aware there'd ever been a hole or trench there , and yet we suffer the rottenest road repairing in the whole wide world . Aside from the fact that we're British , bloody minded and expect the worst as a matter of course , why is that ?
The fact that all main services here in the UK are sunk into the road and not into the sidewalks and verges as most other places doesn't help at all . The fact that all service providers are at liberty - I think - to get at their services whenever they feel the need , such as routine maintenance and repair to services ( that's why we are frequently witness to , say , the gas company digging up a newly surfaced road within days after the surfacing ! ) . They dig it up with their own , or subcontracted contractors and reinstate the hole / trench as quickly as poss. and bugger off to the next job . Quality standards here don't come into it at all . That 'time's money' ethos at work here . All the council's trench inspector can do is check that it's been reinstated , lumpily or shallowly as maybe , he doesn't seem to care , and sign it off as ' job done ' , and the contractor picks up his cheque .
I've long held the view that , as service provider's contractors are only interested in time = money , and not the quality of road surface , councils ought to have their own gang of ace road menders that all service providers are compelled to use on any of their jobs to reinstate the road to the previously pristine state , and the service provider , naturally enough , would have to factor in the cost of the council's gang of happy road menders into their estimates of costs .
Too simplistic ?

spen666 wrote:

mercsport wrote:

...A misconception is that cyclists don't pay road tax . Most bikers of my acquaintance have cars and therefore pay road tax ( I presume ? ) . ...Too simplistic ?

FFS stop spouting sh*te like this.

Road tax was abolished in the 1930s

EVERYONE who pays tax contributes to the cost of the road.

Roads are funded from the general taxation.


Vehicle excise duty (VEL) is a duty to enable you to own a motor vehicle. You have to pay VEL on every vehicle owned unless its exempt or you have made a SORN (Statutory off road notification)

Whether or not a cyclist owns a car is irrelevant to the funding of roads

" Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a British excise duty, which has to be paid to acquire a vehicle licence for most types of motor vehicle. A vehicle licence is usually required if a vehicle is to be legally used on the public roads. The tax, which is also commonly known as the road tax, is not hypothecated for spending on roads, the entire proceeds contributing to central government revenues. Before 1936 the licence was known as the road fund licence, and the proceeds went into the Government's road fund, and used entirely for road expenditure. The tax is collected and enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)."

I don't think we have the best roads - France has billiard-table flat roads.

I live on the Swiss / French border

Many regular cycling routes cross the border several times.

We always joke when entering France at the EXACT point as the road becomes BUMPY.

French roads are fine. Swiss roads are insanely exquisite. Importantly, when cycling up VERY high in the Alps, one can find endless little, tiny, obscure, middle-of-no-where Swiss Farm paths in superb road bikeable condition.


It's pretty amazing really.

mercsport wrote:

spen666 wrote:

mercsport wrote:

...A misconception is that cyclists don't pay road tax . Most bikers of my acquaintance have cars and therefore pay road tax ( I presume ? ) . ...Too simplistic ?

FFS stop spouting sh*te like this.

Road tax was abolished in the 1930s

EVERYONE who pays tax contributes to the cost of the road.

Roads are funded from the general taxation.


Vehicle excise duty (VEL) is a duty to enable you to own a motor vehicle. You have to pay VEL on every vehicle owned unless its exempt or you have made a SORN (Statutory off road notification)

Whether or not a cyclist owns a car is irrelevant to the funding of roads

" Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) is a British excise duty, which has to be paid to acquire a vehicle licence for most types of motor vehicle. A vehicle licence is usually required if a vehicle is to be legally used on the public roads. The tax, which is also commonly known as the road tax, is not hypothecated for spending on roads, the entire proceeds contributing to central government revenues. Before 1936 the licence was known as the road fund licence, and the proceeds went into the Government's road fund, and used entirely for road expenditure. The tax is collected and enforced by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)."

Actually it is even simpler than that........

VED is based on emissions

Vehicles less emitting less than 100 g of Carbon Dioxide per km are in band A

Band A carries a zero tarriff

Cycles are in band A (even after the rider has had a curry and a few pints of "old Bowelrotter")

Cycles therefore pay full VED for their vehicle class...... why is the question raised?

richardjallen wrote:

mercsport wrote:

The fact that all main services here in the UK are sunk into the road and not into the sidewalks and verges as most other places doesn't help at all . The fact that all service providers are at liberty - I think - to get at their services whenever they feel the need , such as routine maintenance and repair to services ( that's why we are frequently witness to , say , the gas company digging up a newly surfaced road within days after the surfacing ! )

Only this morning I was riding along a road that was very poor before it was resurfaced 6 months ago. Although it was not great after being resurfaced it was better. Now they are digging it up again. No doubt drains, pipes or cabling. Don't they try to do all the work at once?

If a job is required infrequently then I can see that a one-off contractor would be cheaper than maintaining a department to do the work. But given that roads are in constant need of attention I don't see why subcontractors should be cheaper. They have a profit margin afterall.

Something that occured to me. Why not lay a large pipe once and then feed cables into that. If you need another cable just open the ends of the pipe and feed it in. If also heard suggestions of using the existing sewer pipes to carry cabling. There would be difficulties I'm sure but theres an opportunity there.

I think the council's own gang of road menders have to tender for a particular job along with other private contractors . At a guess , the lowest quote wins , and , if it's the gang from the town hall , they've got the same incentive to do it as quickly as possible with nothing factored in for quality of work , just so long as it passes inspection. Which leads me to think it's the inspector's standards that are the weakness in the whole system . They're not strict enough . By a long chalk .
As for the one central pipe for all services idea ? I wouldn't know . Is it not 'too' obvious ? I'd imagine the 'leccy people wouldn't fancy sharing a pipe with gas and water . And vice versa . All services break in the end at some point along their length .

Cunobelin wrote : " Cycles therefore pay full VED for their vehicle class...... why is the question raised?"

Although I didn't raise the question I've had it on a number of occasions over the years , shouted through a car's window " Gerr'off the road ! you don't pay road tax ! " . Or words to that effect . As often as not provoked by riding two abreast on a quiet road , idly chatting to your chum into a head wind and unaware of the lone youth to rearward in his pimpmobile impatiently itching to pass .

MattBlackBigBoysBMX wrote:

Ah, but only for vehicles of a certain age (2000 onwards?), earlier cars are on engine capacity.

2001 - March, 2 rates - above and below 1549cc

mercsport wrote:

As for the one central pipe for all services idea ? I wouldn't know . Is it not 'too' obvious ? I'd imagine the 'leccy people wouldn't fancy sharing a pipe with gas and water . And vice versa . All services break in the end at some point along their length .

It is obvious. I expect there is a reason why its not done. Gas electric and water in the same vicinity could cause fireworks I suppose. But then putting the pipes under the pavement where you can just lift a slab and put in back after is quite obvious. No need to buy aggregate and run machines. People say they do that on the continent. Sometimes I think people in England try really hard to find flaws in quite good ideas and then ironically choose to do things the hard way.

Working smarter does not mean going to work in a new shirt.

Gambatte wrote:

First thing that came to mind for me was comparing it to the tracks. No ones supposed to be on them, but they still get miles of copper cabling lifted and nicked.

I'm not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you suggesting that the cabling/pipes would be nicked if you could just lift the paving slabs and get at the cables underneath?

Although they would be under the slabs they would still be buried so pinching them would not be as simple as putting them in your pocket and walking off.