What if cyclists paid 'road tax'?; “Get on the rubbish cycle path!”; LNER upgrades bike storage, but is it good enough?; Tour of Britain host regions announced; Cav misses out; Don't try this at home, bike maintenance edition + more on the live blog

"Road wear is proportional to the tyre load to the fourth power."

Axe load, I believe.

Blimey, didn't realise the Vikings were so engineeringly advanced !

Buying an l...

marmotte27 wrote:

"Road wear is proportional to the tyre load to the fourth power." Axe load, I believe.

Yeah, I wasn't sure where to go with axle versus tyre, as the research lists axle load but it was all done comparing two track vehicles (counting tandem tyres as one track.) So do we double it for the bicycle? Count its two axles as two "half axles?" I figured a factor of two or four in there really doesn't matter as I can afford either 3p or 12p without much changing to my lifestyle.

marmotte27 wrote:

"Road wear is proportional to the tyre load to the fourth power." Axe load, I believe.

This is a valid point, I think we need to introduce high road charges for cyclists and pedestrians carrying axes.

wycombewheeler wrote:

This is a valid point, I think we need to introduce high road charges for cyclists and pedestrians carrying axes.

I don't want to pay every time I take my Telecaster out!

wycombewheeler wrote:

marmotte27 wrote:

"Road wear is proportional to the tyre load to the fourth power." Axe load, I believe.

This is a valid point, I think we need to introduce high road charges for cyclists and pedestrians carrying axes.

It doesn't seem like anyone has a monopoly on causing problems with axes.

Being proportional to the single tyre load the annual fee should probably be 23p for a cyclist if the charge for a car is £180

But that estimated £62,420 fee is for a smart car.  Imagine the fees using the "generalised 4th power law" for "white van man"?

Weight based fees should be introduced as a matter of urgency

Boom! Take that, fuckwit at large!

There We Are Then.

I think you'll find you're wrong.

Good laugh , but ignoring the need to add forces generated by accelerating, braking and cornering. And the pollution totally .

Keeping the maths simple, gets too complicated to quote the laws of physics back at the motorist after he shouts "pay your road tax" out of their car window.

The issue is not so much the pressure exerted on the road by the vehicle. Roads are designed to withstand various pressures be they via skinny tyres are wide lorry tyres. 

The issue is the traction created by the vehicle. This is when the surface of the road is flexed by the tyres of the vehicle which create microscopic cracks allowing water ingress which eventually leads to potholes etc. This combined with diesel and oil spillage from poorly maintained vehicles further exacerbates the issue. 

If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.

Bungle_52 wrote:

If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.

Bus stops often have very visible wear on them too which also demonstrates that it's the stopping and starting that causes the road to move.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Bungle_52 wrote:

If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.

Bus stops often have very visible wear on them too which also demonstrates that it's the stopping and starting that causes the road to move.

That's exactly my experience; someone here also pointed to fluid leakage (brake, lubricants) at these points softening the tarmac binding as an extra factor.

But now someone's told us if you landed a passenger jet on the road it would suffer no damage we're obviously all talking out of our axles.

hawkinspeter wrote:

Bungle_52 wrote:

If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.

Bus stops often have very visible wear on them too which also demonstrates that it's the stopping and starting that causes the road to move.

This is more to do with spilt diesel which softens the tarmac. The movement of the vehicles then does the obvious damage. 

giff77 wrote:

This is more to do with spilt diesel which softens the tarmac. The movement of the vehicles then does the obvious damage. 

Would bus stops have more spilt diesel than other parts of the road? If not, then although the spilt diesel may allow greater damage, the point still stands that roads have greater damage at bus stops. (Also traffic lights where all kinds of vehicles stop and start).

hawkinspeter wrote:

Would bus stops have more spilt diesel than other parts of the road? 

I don't think so; outside bus garages, yes, where they spill just after filling up (and yes the tarmac does show it), at stops it's the weight of the buses, especially under braking. The steepest hill near me (7-8%) has massive ruts like a cart track going into the bus stop on the downhill lane due to the braking forces required.

Rendel Harris wrote:

I don't think so; outside bus garages, yes, where they spill just after filling up (and yes the tarmac does show it), at stops it's the weight of the buses, especially under braking. The steepest hill near me (7-8%) has massive ruts like a cart track going into the bus stop on the downhill lane due to the braking forces required.

There's exactly the same thing just up the road from where I live

It would seem to be the case. A lot of stops my way have huge troughs. After some thinking I've put it down to a particular depot of that company as the damage seems to be on their route nos. The other depot doesn't seem to have the same issues on their routes. It will be interesting to see what happens as they introduce more EVs to their fleet. 

Junction opposite us leads to an industrial estate where a haulage firm is based. With a new housing development they changed it forcing HGVs to make a much sharper turn. It is also at the bottom of a hill and liable to flood in heavy rain. Net result is a road surface that the mars rover would struggle with.

Adam Sutton wrote:

Junction opposite us leads to an industrial estate where a haulage firm is based. With a new housing development they changed it forcing HGVs to make a much sharper turn. It is also at the bottom of a hill and liable to flood in heavy rain. Net result is a road surface that the mars rover would struggle with.

I'd like to see haulage companies pay their bit towards the damage their vehicles do to roads, but that would also end up raising prices for almost everything as we rely so much on lorries in the UK and as roads are shared infrastructure, funding them out of general taxation does make sense.

What could be a good idea is to have an extra tax for heavy vehicles going into towns/cities to provide an incentive for out-of-town depots and cargo bikes to transport goods the last few miles. There's also the issue with HGVs causing cyclist deaths (especially in London) so there's another reason to consider extra taxes or limits on the times they can use commuter routes.

There's a quarry my way which contributes to the costs of resurfacing the main road as and when it happens. 

I believe HGVs already pay an extra premium for this, don't know for sure, I just seem to recall a haulier mentioning this somewhere.

Taxation may be the wrong way, as you point out that would just be passed to joe public as the costs get passed down the chain ultimately to the poor sod buying whatever was being transported. Maybe incentive to move to cleaner means at least for the last bit. As you say HGVs in cities and built up areas are an issue. Not least the pollution, like I say the haulier near us is at the bottom of a hill, and I am glad we live a good half mile back from the main road. I won't walk or cycle the main the main road largely due to the pollution from HGVs having to rev hard to get up the hill.

Bungle_52 wrote:

If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.

Exactly. Yet there are individuals here would have us believe this damage is caused by cyclists. 

giff77 wrote:

Bungle_52 wrote:

If you need evidence that this is correct look at the places that have high wear. In my experience these are areas where cars brake or accelerate (much too severely in my opinion) such as the entry and exits of roundabouts, traffic lights, junctions etc. Then there are areas where lorries make sharp turns, due the huge frictional forces generated by tyres. Look at the road at the entry and exit to depots etc.

Exactly. Yet there are individuals here would have us believe this damage is caused by cyclists. 

never noticed the ruts in the inside lane of the motorway?

That's cyclists illegally praticising for team time trial in the dead of night, doing that.

Why is the inside really lane worse? heaver vehicles using it. 

Damn. The secrets out! 

I actually did 2 versions, 1 including the weight of the rider. For the sake of simplicity, say 70kg for the average rider so 80kg overall. But then you have to think that a family size car can seat 5 70kg adults, so the weight goes up to 1850kg. That would mean the car would pay £809 per year if the cyclist was paying £10, while if a Motorist paid £180 per year a cyclist would be paying £2.22.

Part of the reason for not including it you would have to start weighing pedestrians and charging them a pavement tax.

You also have to think that 2000 miles per year is a pretty achievable figure for a commuter or leisure cyclist, I'm sure the number of miles across all adults who cycle on public roads would actually be much lower.