Hello,
I was thining, manhole covers on the road when wet are dangerous as we know and obviously so are pot holesm which a lot has been said about.
Anyway, to my point before i start to waffle, if the government, councils, and so on know how dangerous manhole covers are to motorbikes, why oh why do they not use concrete covers?! Yeah they may cost more but surely the extra cost is worth it if it will save bikers lives because they don't get slippy when wet.
To me it makes sense to folk out that bit extra and seeing as we as road tax payers technically pay for the roads up keep then surley we should also decide.
Also was talking to my uncle today, his an ex-biker, and he said that there is non-slip tarmac that was used in his area, now not used as the other tarmac is cheaper.
What are your thoughts onm this and do you think its worth campaigning? I personnally do think its worth it, slighty extra cost which could save many lives and prevent unnecessary accidents.
Adz
Some councils have tried the non slip variety Adz, but it is unduobtedly cheaper for them to leave us poor sods to bike at our peril & as with manholes--avoid them where we can!!
The only price they put on our safety is--cut price
Isn't it genii? Tee hee...
I think you're spot on with your assumptions and comments Ace, it should be mandatory for highways departments to employ bikers to test their works.
The way they leave humps and bumps when moving lines around is treacherous, as are metal manhole covers on bends and brows.
Don't know if MAG already campaign for such things, I should think so tho'.
No need to worry about the drainhole covers anymore at least.
They are being stolen round our way for their scrap value.
Just bloody great holes at the side of the roads now!
RustyKnight In: Newton Aycliffe
Posts: 2462
Karma:
ace, concrete manholes are more expensive than cast iron and break up over time with the movement from heavy traffic so not always practical and they need to be lifted by people to gain access to the chambers underneath, that's why the cast iron ones are split in two to make lifting easier.
Non-slip tarmac is used in braking areas on the approach to roundabouts, junctions etc. If they used it everywhere our road tax would probably triple to pay for it!
i think they should lay rubber on the roads so we dont have to buy tires problem solved simples X
it dose anoy me though that there is allways a great big hump in the road just before a real good bend or is it just me !
I think when I decided to get a bike, manhole covers where part of the risk! I wouldn't of done my test if I wasn't willing to go over a few now and then !
No doubt they are dangerous, but getting counsils to cover them would be next to impossible for many reasons!
Think all we can do is our very best to avoid them !!
When I lived in South Wales the road just beside me had had some work going on and they had leve raised manholes, i.e. they had took the top road surface off and left the hole and metal cover on, they stood a couple of inches clear, like a metal kerb.
I rang the council and told them that putting a sign to say raised covers was not enough and they would be liable for any damage or accident caused by their negligence, they had a duty of care.
When I did this, I didn't rant or threaten anyone, simply pointed out some Heath and Safety regulations, as its part of my job, they were very helpful.
To their credit the following day they put some tarmac around the covers as a sort of ramp and put even more signs up.
I see your points there. The concrete covers do cost more and do need replacing, but at the same time how can they put a cost on lives. They are quick to put speed camera's in, which to me and many others is just an extra tax really seeing as speed camera's are put in stupid places, try improve safety for car drivers but where's the safety side for us riders.
As for road tax, well, most of the road tax as far as can be seen is not actually spent on the roads but on pointless projects and wars. Plus if the councils actually spent a bit extra on decent road surfaces then there would not be the need to constantly replace the surface so much.
Ah i don't know, just think (and i except the risks of riding) that maybe the councils could spend a bit on such covers, at least in the middle of roads anyway, to improve bike safety for us as we like drivers do pay road tax and yet get left out when it comes to safety for us.
Ok that was a waffle lol
Adz
There are various alternatives to cast iron covers. The most common of these are infill covers which have a sunken top allowing a layer of asphalt or concrete to be formed in it.
However, as RK quite rightly pointed out these have issues. One of the main issues is the additional weight and the fact that people have to lift them occasionally. A related issue is that when they are lifted they can twist slightly causing the filling material to break.
Councils do put a price on lives, but whenever a form of accident remediation scheme is considered it undergoes a cost benefit ratio analysis and unfortunately this often shows that the works are not worthwhile.
Replacing all covers with infill covers would cost millions, not to mention the additional maintenance costs associated with them. Many lives would need to be saved in order to justify the cost and this would be unlikely to happen.
Sounds harsh but this is the reality of road safety engineering I'm afraid. I have been asked numerous times by residents if someone has to die at a particular junction or similar before something is done and the answer I always give is "Sorry, but yes."
As far as anti-skid surfacing is concerned, it is incredibly expensive. Despite only being around 4-6mm thick it costs well over £20 a square metre compared to the cost of 45mm asphalt of around £6.
However, there are new asphalts out there nowadays which are getting very good skid resistance measurements. Whereas a high friction material such as Shellgrip has a PSV (Polished Stone Value) of around 72, modern asphalts regularly exceeding 69.
This and because of the cost of anti-skid surfacings more and more local authorities are dropping their "anti-skid on every approach" policies in favour of a more sensible policy of only providing anti-skid on those approaches that need it. Open straight roads on the approach to a hazard, high flow controlled pedestrian crossings etc.
After all if, because of some other factor, approach speeds to a signalised crossing (for example) are likely to be less than 35mph, then there clearly is no need for anti-skid material.
It is not being omitted because simple asphalt is cheaper, but rather because it is not needed.
I prefer avoiding manhole covers to the horror of giant shiny white arrows that are slightly raised paint...the slightest precipitation (& I live in greater manchester, it get wet a lot!) and you're all over the shop - 3 lanes of traffic, each with their own giant arrow on the A580 -its hard to avoid them all!
I cant see why manholes have to be in the road what idiot thought it was a good idea to put all the services under the roads.
Surely under the pavement would be less trouble all round with lighter covers as less wear and tear and yes there is a chance of a pedestrian being hit by a car if they had to step into the road when work is being carried out but with all the signs and fencing up it would be very rare and how many people have been injured by bike hitting then after crashing on a wet bend after hitting a metal cover.
same goes for rural roads run yhem in the fields Im sure the cows or crops wont mind.
Rant over Im going for a lie down
RustyKnight In: Newton Aycliffe
Posts: 2462
Karma:
*I cant see why manholes have to be in the road what idiot thought it was a good idea to put all the services under the roads*
micksaway most people don't realise that the manhole cover is actually a small entry into a very deep chamber often over 2.4m wide and sometimes up to 7 or more metres deep. The lid is only that size so that it can be lifted manually by two people. There isn't enough room in a pavement for the chamber to be dug, that's why it's in the road
Most services are under footways or verges mick. It is only the larger ones, drainage, some water mains, sewerage and most gas mains that live under the carriageway.
If these were placed under the footway, there would be no room for telecoms, electricity, street lighting circuits, traffic signal ducting etc. These would then have to go in the carriageway instead and apart from there being a far greater number of boxes and therefore covers associated with these, they require far more frequent maintenance which would result in much greater disruption of traffic.
Furthermore, in order to avoid costly and potentially problematic wayleaves it is easier to site all services within the public highway rather than through farmers fields etc. Indeed, when we are investigating any form of services diversion, the company responsible for them normally insists on it. And rightly so.
![Manhole covers - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8mobileLQ.jpg)
![Manhole covers - Forums [Biker Match]](/images/backgrounds/strips/8desktopLQ.jpg)
