Cycling UK Forum

Psamathe wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 7:29pm I accept that direct reporting has benefits, but certainly the app I use also has benefits in terms of speed of compiling report (and thus disrupting your walk for longer given I can sometimes be reporting 5+ potholes on single walk/ride sometimes). Apps work out which authority you are in (convenient if you are travelling near border between authorities, apps use GPS for exact location, use phone camera to include photo(s), force entry of required details and app I currently use then submits on 3your behalf so you get the acknowledgement and update e-mails from the authority.

I accept there are negatives but to be making manual notes and compiling reports at home would be so much slower I'd probably not bother.

Ian

Yeah, absolutely. During my time as a customer advisor for a local authority I asked that funds be used in the development of an app which allowed you to report a road defect, fly-tipping, fallen tree or other issue, simply by taking a photo of it, including information from your phone location system, and sending it to the authority, all in one click. It was warmly received but nothing further was said.

The thing with using third party apps, is that I don't know how the information is transmitted from them to the local authority. If its submitted by email, and if the authority change their email address then that could be tens or even hundreds of reports not received.

One of the problems I find with cyclepaths, is knowing who to report the problem to. There’s a path that I regularly use, next to the A6097, between Lowdham and Gunthorpe. It’s a well used path, as it keeps you off the busy main road. The road is maintained by Notts Couny Council. I reported the problem to them, no response in 2 weeks, so I complained, I then did get a response, only to be told that the path is maintained by the district council - in this case, Newark and Sherwood. Notts wouldn’t pass my report on, so I then had to put a new report in to the District council. The problem ( a request for the path to be swept to clear loose grit and broken glass) was eventually actioned, but it took about 6 weeks from my initial report. Of course, I now know to go direct to them for this particular path, but another one could have a different managing agent.

TrevA wrote: ↑24 Oct 2021, 3:17pm One of the problems I find with cyclepaths, is knowing who to report the problem to. There’s a path that I regularly used, next to the A6097. The road is maintained by Notts Couny Council. I reported the problem to them, no response in 2 weeks, so I complained. I then did get a response, only to be told that the path is maintained by the district council - in this case, Newark and Sherwood. Notts wouldn’t pass my report on, so I then had to put a new report in to the District council. The problem ( a request for the path to be swept to clear loose grit and broken glass) was eventually actioned, but it took about 6 weeks from my initial report. Of course, I now know to go direct to them for this particular path, but another one could have a different managing agent.

I have no knowledge but I'd suspect the apps (3rd party) would not know that that specific path happened to be maintained by district rather than council. For me the failings in your report situation is that County failed to pass on the report when they knew who did have responsibility - shows a complete lack of concern over safety and I'd be raising the procedural failure of County with my Councillors to try and get some procedures requiring such reports be passed on (noting that I have time and others may not). Also District seem to be excessively slow where safety of cyclists is concerned (again. something I'd be taking up with my District Councillor noting I have time to do such things).

Ian

Psamathe wrote: ↑24 Oct 2021, 3:23pmFor me the failings in your report situation is that County failed to pass on the report when they knew who did have responsibility - shows a complete lack of concern over safety and I'd be raising the procedural failure of County with my Councillors to try and get some procedures requiring such reports be passed on (noting that I have time and others may not).

Indeed, and I am 98% sure that County as highway authority is legally responsible for such a path along a highway, so they would be on the hook for District's failure to repair it, even if County can demand payment from District under their sub contract or delegation. There's really no good reason for them not to pass the report on.

Some general points

• So much of this is about money and local authorities have lots of competing demands on theirs.

• It cannot be right that people feel they have to resort to complaining to an inept omsbuddy to get a result. The cost of probably being fobbed off would be better devoted to fixing the defects.

• A publicly accessible record of defect reports avoids any suggestion of a lack of clarity when an authority is facing a compo claim.

I think councils will find any excuse they can not to carry out road maintenance.
A few years ago I complained to Surrey CC about a cycle bypass on a road chicane being encroached upon by “grassy” vegetation.
I received a reply that included sentences stating:- that it was the district council’s responsibility to keep it clear, that it wasn’t a cycle bypass anyway, and that there was enough room for a cyclist to use it.

Edit to add. I've looked at a recent Streetview
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1593703 ... 384!8i8192

Perhaps the reply was right that it wasn't a cycle bypass, but why is the island away from the roadside and how simple it would have been to make it a proper bypass.

Psamathe wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 12:11pmI also sometimes wonder if there is a cost of repair consideration.

There aren't the funds to maintain the roads properly, let alone thousands of additional miles of cycle paths. At least the roads are swept clean of debris by the passage of thousands of motor vehicles.

MikeF wrote: ↑25 Oct 2021, 2:04pm why is the island away from the roadside

Existing road dainage, usually. There is a nugget of truth in the vehicularists calling these "bike gutters" and many of the pre-2000 ones would probably not have been provided without the dual use.

axel_knutt wrote: ↑25 Oct 2021, 3:13pm

Psamathe wrote: ↑23 Oct 2021, 12:11pmI also sometimes wonder if there is a cost of repair consideration.

There aren't the funds to maintain the roads properly, let alone thousands of additional miles of cycle paths. At least the roads are swept clean of debris by the passage of thousands of motor vehicles.

There will never be enough funding to balance out the damage done by motor vehicles. But cycle paths are pretty cheap to maintain because bikes don't do so much damage. They are also swept clean by bikes if popular enough (but few in the UK are because most are crap) and an occssional pass by minisweeper is still cheaper than maintaining a road used by motorists.

And if potholes can't be dealt with there is always this convenient sign as was pointed out to me. Oddly there is only this sign at the southern end. This is one of Surrey CC's maintainable D roads.
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1490653 ... 312!8i6656
I only cycle the road not drive it so the sign is irrelevant, but at one point it became impassable even on foot wearing wellington boots, as a section had collapsed because agricultural vehicles had crossed it.
I've exchanged several emails with Surrey CC and even made a freedom of information request and it seemed to have been made passable again - at least in summer. I haven't checked the road recently.

There maybe good reason for not making motor access easy though , but it should be passable with a cycle.

MikeF wrote: ↑25 Oct 2021, 4:09pm There maybe good reason for not making motor access easy though , but it should be passable with a cycle.

Yeah. I found a section like that on tour this summer, signed as unsuitable for motor vehicles and barely passable by bike. I wonder if the standard is that it should be passable with a horse and cart, or something like that. Anyone know?

mjr wrote: ↑25 Oct 2021, 3:16pm But cycle paths are pretty cheap to maintain because bikes don't do so much damage.

Neither do the dog walkers who use them: maybe Cycling UK should branch out and explore a new revenue stream.