“Surface Dressing”, the most pointless annoying maintenance?

[DanB7290]

So the last few months, a lot of roads near me have fallen victim to so called “surface dressing”. When I first saw the signs saying it will be done, I was imagining they’d possibly fill in some of the potholes and tidy up the white lines.

What I actually found was they dumped a stload of loose chipping down on the road, then left it. Why do something so irritating that doesn’t actually help fix the road at all?

I would even go as far to say not only is it annoying, but also dangerous. In the car, I have had to replace my windscreen because of Leicestershire County Council’s handiwork being flicked up at me by the car in front, and one of my customers came in complaining about the same thing happening to him.

I’m ready for some anti cycling hate to come my way here, but on the bike it’s even worse. I’m on 26mm wide tyres, so hitting this is dangerous in itself, means I have to go down to walking pace and end up annoying people trying to pass. It increases the chance of running my bike tyres, at £60 a tyre that’s not good. And even worse, as the clippings get flicked up by passing cars I get hit with them, good job that I have strong glasses on as one of those to the eyes is going to hurt. Surely someone at the council has actually thought about this, but then been shot down by the overwhelming majority of idiots running the place.

I realise this isn’t sweaty enough for a rant, so fk st pissflaps

[Tribal Chestnut]

Try it on a motorcycle if you think a bicycle feels sketchy.

Re. windscreen chips - a larger gap to the vehicle in front should help.

I do agree; it’s an atrocious waste of money.

Wouldn’t be surprised to see some of the smart m’way/variable speed limit defender types jump in with their justifications at some point though.

[Type R Tom]

It can work, for example it can seal the road to prevent water getting in and causing crack and also improve skid resistance. For the first few days (depending on traffic levels) its a bit dodgy though and more could be done to improve the situation.

Of course in an ideal world, the top 40mm would be skimmed off and relayed like they do in most city centers but for the 1000s of KMs in the country side it is just too expensive.

[SteveStrange]

Re. stone chips, that's why they always have advisory 20mph limits. The chips are caused by the pricks in Transits thinking 50/60mph is still appropriate.

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. It is used when complete resurfacing (planing off and relaying the surface course entirely) is overkill, or simply isn't needed. The timescales (and budgets) would increase immensely if plane/inlay resurfacing were used across the board. The amount of roads treated would shrink hugely - down to single figure percentages. I would estimate you could resurface about 3-5% of the amount of roads, compared to surface dressing, purely based on time, and that's without budgetary pressures from the politicos. And when done correctly, surface dressing is fine, and extends the life of a road by somewhre between 5 and 10 years - provided the existing surface is just worn/polished, and not cracked/holed.

(Highways engineer here, not political or hugely concerned with budget, just concerned with ensuring the relevant treatment is used for the defect being addressed.)

And yes I know they're not much fun on bikes (I have a motorcycle) but they are done once every 10 years so it's a minor inconvenence, IMO. Use it as an opportunity to find another, more relaxed, more scenic route


ETA Or what Tom said above me, far more efficiently)

[TrotCanterGallopCharge]

SteveStrange said:

Re. stone chips, that's why they always have advisory 20mph limits. The chips are caused by the pricks in Transits thinking 50/60mph is still appropriate.

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. It is used when complete resurfacing (planing off and relaying the surface course entirely) is overkill, or simply isn't needed. The timescales (and budgets) would increase immensely if plane/inlay resurfacing were used across the board. The amount of roads treated would shrink hugely - down to single figure percentages. I would estimate you could resurface about 3-5% of the amount of roads, compared to surface dressing, purely based on time, and that's without budgetary pressures from the politicos. And when done correctly, surface dressing is fine, and extends the life of a road by somewhre between 5 and 10 years - provided the existing surface is just worn/polished, and not cracked/holed.

(Highways engineer here, not political or hugely concerned with budget, just concerned with ensuring the relevant treatment is used for the defect being addressed.)

And yes I know they're not much fun on bikes (I have a motorcycle) but they are done once every 10 years so it's a minor inconvenence, IMO. Use it as an opportunity to find another, more relaxed, more scenic route


ETA Or what Tom said above me, far more efficiently)

Main thing seems to be that so much of the aggregate doesn't seem to get 'rolled in', it just seems to get left on top/not swept up/off. Piles of aggregate against the kerbs or in middle of the road. Doesn't sound like what the designers had planned. This is what causes the surface to be unsafe (until rolled in by general traffic), as well as thrown up by other cars.

I'd imagine a lot of aggregate also ends up in the drains, causing other issues.

Not saying it's not a cost effective layer/coating, but it doesn't seem to be applied well/correctly most of the time, with aggregate lying loose weeks afterwards.

[BoRED S2upid]

They love this around here. Tar slurry chippings job done. Come back in 2 years and do it all again. It must be very cheap to do. It’s better than nothing I guess.

As for cycling I’m on a Cube cyclocross pro most of the time the roads are just too st for a road bike most of the year.

[Megaflow]

SteveStrange said:

Re. stone chips, that's why they always have advisory 20mph limits. The chips are caused by the pricks in Transits thinking 50/60mph is still appropriate.

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. It is used when complete resurfacing (planing off and relaying the surface course entirely) is overkill, or simply isn't needed. The timescales (and budgets) would increase immensely if plane/inlay resurfacing were used across the board. The amount of roads treated would shrink hugely - down to single figure percentages. I would estimate you could resurface about 3-5% of the amount of roads, compared to surface dressing, purely based on time, and that's without budgetary pressures from the politicos. And when done correctly, surface dressing is fine, and extends the life of a road by somewhre between 5 and 10 years - provided the existing surface is just worn/polished, and not cracked/holed.

(Highways engineer here, not political or hugely concerned with budget, just concerned with ensuring the relevant treatment is used for the defect being addressed.)

And yes I know they're not much fun on bikes (I have a motorcycle) but they are done once every 10 years so it's a minor inconvenence, IMO. Use it as an opportunity to find another, more relaxed, more scenic route


ETA Or what Tom said above me, far more efficiently)

When done correctly, that is the key part. You wouldn't believe what Lincolnshire Council surface dress over and there seems to be more loose clippings left lying on the surface than they actually roll into the surface.

Interesting you say it extends a road's life for 5-10 years, is the recommendation to then resurface? Because Lincolnshire just keep on dressing, over and over again.

[SteveStrange]

Megaflow said:

SteveStrange said:

Re. stone chips, that's why they always have advisory 20mph limits. The chips are caused by the pricks in Transits thinking 50/60mph is still appropriate.

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. It is used when complete resurfacing (planing off and relaying the surface course entirely) is overkill, or simply isn't needed. The timescales (and budgets) would increase immensely if plane/inlay resurfacing were used across the board. The amount of roads treated would shrink hugely - down to single figure percentages. I would estimate you could resurface about 3-5% of the amount of roads, compared to surface dressing, purely based on time, and that's without budgetary pressures from the politicos. And when done correctly, surface dressing is fine, and extends the life of a road by somewhre between 5 and 10 years - provided the existing surface is just worn/polished, and not cracked/holed.

(Highways engineer here, not political or hugely concerned with budget, just concerned with ensuring the relevant treatment is used for the defect being addressed.)

And yes I know they're not much fun on bikes (I have a motorcycle) but they are done once every 10 years so it's a minor inconvenence, IMO. Use it as an opportunity to find another, more relaxed, more scenic route


ETA Or what Tom said above me, far more efficiently)

When done correctly, that is the key part. You wouldn't believe what Lincolnshire Council surface dress over and there seems to be more loose clippings left lying on the surface than they actually roll into the surface.

Interesting you say it extends a road's life for 5-10 years, is the recommendation to then resurface? Because Lincolnshire just keep on dressing, over and over again.

If the structure of the road is sound, then no reason why surface dressing can't be done repeatedly - it's main purpose is to "seal" the surface, and improve skid resiistance. If the road has holes and cracks, then dressing doesn't do anything to solve that, and actual resurfacing (or complete reconstruction) is the only thing that will "properly" fix it. Surface dressing and resurfacing are separate procedures, for separate purposes.

I suppose a fair motoring analogy is replacing brake fluid, vs replacing brake pads. Both can improve brake performance, but it depends on the reason why the brakes are poor in the first place.

[Ron240]

Tribal Chestnut said:

Re. windscreen chips - a larger gap to the vehicle in front should help.

This is sensible advice in general for avoiding stone chips, but unfortunately one can do nothing about vehicles driving in the opposite direction.
My one and only time needing a new windscreen was caused by a stone being flicked up by a lorry travellng in the opposite direction to myself.
Personally speaking if I had an alternative route to take I would completely avoid any road that had loose chippings, and if that meant doing a u turn then thats what I would do.

[tivver500]

I was Engineering Manager for a company that made the chipping spreaders used in surface dressing hence I spent a lot of my time travelling around training the operators of such machines.
One of my customers, a private company, used to do a superb job with even the use of a salt spreader to put fine grit down to eliminate any bitumen overspray.
A lot of others used 'foreign' workers, who moved around a lot, hence the approach was to turn the controls up to 'maximum' and put st loads of chippings down. They weren't paying for them so didn't care.....

Don't blame the process - blame the companies who ignore the training requirements of using the machines!!!

[TrotCanterGallopCharge]

tivver500 said:

I was Engineering Manager for a company that made the chipping spreaders used in surface dressing hence I spent a lot of my time travelling around training the operators of such machines.
One of my customers, a private company, used to do a superb job with even the use of a salt spreader to put fine grit down to eliminate any bitumen overspray.
A lot of others used 'foreign' workers, who moved around a lot, hence the approach was to turn the controls up to 'maximum' and put st loads of chippings down. They weren't paying for them so didn't care.....

Don't blame the process - blame the companies who ignore the training requirements of using the machines!!!

That's fair enough. Thanks for info.

Don't the Local Authority/Highways Agency have to sign the work off? If they condemned roads until the loose chippings were removed, it'd make the roads better/safer, & save the company laying the work material costs. Sad state of affairs if people have to be hurt before anyone takes notice.

[Andy86GT]

Surface Dressing is utter crap. Period. I honestly think the road is better left 'un-dressed'. I understand the theory of sealing the surface but it's just a very temporary fix like painting over the cracks, they come back in no time. Around here in the midlands it's always a terrible bodgit and scarper effort with large patches (often under trees) where all the stones have come off within months of it being laid.

[Dewi 2]

There does appear to be a difference in the use of granite chippings surface dressings, between various county councils.
By observation, Worcestershire County Council are obsessed with using surface dressing. An excellent fine grade asphalt surface, will routinely be surface dressed about a year after it has been laid.

I have not noticed any surface dressing being used in Dorset, Isle of Wight and some Welsh counties.
It presumably therefore must be a county council policy decision.

In addition to glass damage immediately following the laying work, there is the continual annoying consequence of far greater road noise, not only for motorists, but also for people living near to those roads.

[Evanivitch]

SteveStrange said:

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. I

So why is there always excess that is left for about a week for traffic to foll in before a sweeper is used?

[SteveStrange]

Evanivitch said:

SteveStrange said:

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. I

So why is there always excess that is left for about a week for traffic to foll in before a sweeper is used?

Because roads see varying amounts of traffic. Some roads have a lot of traffic, therefore a lot of rolling action (for want of a better phrase), others see very little. If you drive down a road with a lot of loose aggregate on it, then you might be one of (say) 300 cars a day that use it. If there is no loose aggregate on another road in a similar timescale after dressing, then it might be seeing 20,000 passes a day.

Also there aren't thousands of (very expensive) sweepers just sitting around idle waiting for jobs. They are some of the busiest, most well-used bits of plant out there.

[ChocolateFrog]

Ron240 said:

Tribal Chestnut said:

Re. windscreen chips - a larger gap to the vehicle in front should help.

This is sensible advice in general for avoiding stone chips, but unfortunately one can do nothing about vehicles driving in the opposite direction.
My one and only time needing a new windscreen was caused by a stone being flicked up by a lorry travellng in the opposite direction to myself.
Personally speaking if I had an alternative route to take I would completely avoid any road that had loose chippings, and if that meant doing a u turn then thats what I would do.

That's the annoying thing. You can be going as slow as you want but Barry in his spotter that hasn't been serviced in 10 years doesn't care.

Go slow enough and you'll just be overtaken.

[SteveStrange]

ChocolateFrog said:

Ron240 said:

Tribal Chestnut said:

Re. windscreen chips - a larger gap to the vehicle in front should help.

This is sensible advice in general for avoiding stone chips, but unfortunately one can do nothing about vehicles driving in the opposite direction.
My one and only time needing a new windscreen was caused by a stone being flicked up by a lorry travellng in the opposite direction to myself.
Personally speaking if I had an alternative route to take I would completely avoid any road that had loose chippings, and if that meant doing a u turn then thats what I would do.

That's the annoying thing. You can be going as slow as you want but Barry in his spotter that hasn't been serviced in 10 years doesn't care.

Go slow enough and you'll just be overtaken.

This is the main problem - you can drive to the advisory 20mph limit and people behind you willl be fine. But then ttFace in his stbox comes the other way at 50mph and everyone suffers.

[Evanivitch]

SteveStrange said:

Evanivitch said:

SteveStrange said:

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. I

So why is there always excess that is left for about a week for traffic to foll in before a sweeper is used?

Because roads see varying amounts of traffic. Some roads have a lot of traffic, therefore a lot of rolling action (for want of a better phrase), others see very little. If you drive down a road with a lot of loose aggregate on it, then you might be one of (say) 300 cars a day that use it. If there is no loose aggregate on another road in a similar timescale after dressing, then it might be seeing 20,000 passes a day.

Also there aren't thousands of (very expensive) sweepers just sitting around idle waiting for jobs. They are some of the busiest, most well-used bits of plant out there.

That doesn't answer the question. If it's rolled into the bitumen, why is there any left at all, regardless of passing vehicle count? From what I understand, the traffic is part of the rolling in process, which is absurd. What's wrong with rolling and sweeping before reopening?,

[stogbandard]

I always make an effort to avoid roads that have been surface dressed.

Even when the sweepers have been and gone there’s still loose chippings lying around months later. Poor adhesion can also make it worse, certainty after a few frosts. This is certainly the case in Northants.

You’d think that with this work being contracted out, clauses would be written in to ensure that the job is done properly. It would certainly help if they were made liable to screen and paint damage.

Better still, just ban it. The idea that surface dressing lengthens road surface life is jus a load of sloblocks in my view, especially if it’s a half arsed job, which it normally is.

[SteveStrange]

Evanivitch said:

SteveStrange said:

Evanivitch said:

SteveStrange said:

And the OP is slightly inaccurate - the aggregate is rolled in to the bitumen with surface dressing, it is not spread and left. I

So why is there always excess that is left for about a week for traffic to foll in before a sweeper is used?

Because roads see varying amounts of traffic. Some roads have a lot of traffic, therefore a lot of rolling action (for want of a better phrase), others see very little. If you drive down a road with a lot of loose aggregate on it, then you might be one of (say) 300 cars a day that use it. If there is no loose aggregate on another road in a similar timescale after dressing, then it might be seeing 20,000 passes a day.

Also there aren't thousands of (very expensive) sweepers just sitting around idle waiting for jobs. They are some of the busiest, most well-used bits of plant out there.

That doesn't answer the question. If it's rolled into the bitumen, why is there any left at all, regardless of passing vehicle count? From what I understand, the traffic is part of the rolling in process, which is absurd. What's wrong with rolling and sweeping before reopening?,

Time and cost. You can surface dress and re-open miles of road in a day. Closing it to carry out rolling/sweeping operations is far less efficient, and costs many, many times more money. And when councils are asked to make millions of pounds of "efficiency savings" every year, which department do you think gets asked first?

But yes, absurd. I forgot everyone with a driving licence is immediately an expert in road maintenance :rollyes: