Risk-based approach FAQs

In the past, we ranked the severity of road surface defects by their depth. For example, when a pothole exceeded 40 mm in depth that would trigger a repair; it didn’t matter where the pothole was.

By using a risk-based approach, we take into account more than just physical dimensions. For example, the location and the number of people exposed to the hazard matters too. If we classed a pothole in the wheel track of a busy A-class road as high risk, we would probably class the same pothole in a quiet cul-de-sac as a much lower risk.

No, other factors influence risk, such as:

• speed limit
• road geometry
• visibility
• road user types
• proximity to key local facilities
• a history of previous incidents

Risk is evaluated by assessing the likelihood of someone encountering a hazard and the most probable (not the worst possible) consequence if they do.

We have a team of trained Technical Inspectors who inspect the road network regularly to identify defects for repair. They carry out risk assessments, which inform and determine our responses.

No, not at all; it applies to every asset on the road network. For example, a faded ‘Stop’ sign would most likely be replaced faster than a missing repeater sign because of the greater risk it poses.

We have set maximum target times to respond to each level of risk. Critical-risk defects should be made safe within 24hrs of being identified, because these defects are in the most urgent need of repair. High-risk defects will be looked at within a week.

If defects are assessed as lower risk, it gives us the opportunity to programme repairs over longer periods, rather than react spontaneously. So medium-risk defects are targeted for repair within three months and low-risk within 12 months.

There are several reasons why. First and foremost is road user safety. If we can ensure our repair teams are fixing the higher-risk defects first, then that cuts down on the time that the public are exposed to significant hazards and potential harm. It also gives the repair teams more time to carry out a ‘complete’ repair; that's a high-quality, lasting repair that won’t readily turn back into a pothole again.

Sometimes all we can do is a quick repair to make the defect safe in the short term, so traffic isn’t held up. We might not even be able to make a repair right away so all we can do in the short term is place signs and cones out. Most critical risk defects are made safe initially and then programmed for complete repairs later.

With a mini roundabout, usually all we can do is a short-stop quick repair to make the defect safe. A complete repair takes longer and would likely need traffic control to be set up first. You’ll often see several of these ‘make-safe’ repairs clustered in high stress areas, like junctions, until we are able to programme the surfacing of the whole junction.

Our main commuter routes and bus routes are inspected monthly, with most of the residential streets in Fife inspected annually.

You can still report a road defect by using our online Road Reporting Form and an Inspector will come out to assess it. Any reported defect that needs attention will be actioned in the same way as if we had spotted it ourselves.

It’s understandable that it looks odd when we do that. Our Technical Inspectors use judgement that they have developed through training to decide on the risk each defect presents. It’s not unusual to have a range of defects in a street, each presenting a different level of risk. Therefore, some are repaired and others not and we continue to monitor the ones that have been left

Sometimes it does. If our repair team's there to repair a high-risk defect (P2) and there is a medium risk defect next to it, of a size they are equipped to repair, then it makes sense. However, the overriding factor is for our repair teams to attend to higher risk defects as priority – safety is more important than efficiency.

Inefficiencies from reacting quickly to higher risk defects are offset by being able to programme lower risk repairs more efficiently. Before we adopted a risk-based approach, all repairs were treated the same regardless of the level of risk they presented.

This is because defects presenting a lower risk are included in a programme that can take several weeks to complete.

Some larger defects need a different repair method and the team uses different equipment, so these are programmed separately. It’s our approach with many lower-risk defects to use the opportunity to repair larger areas of cracked pavement and, in doing so, stop the formation of potholes.

This has not been ignored. It would have been assessed and classed as a negligible risk, so rather than repair just now it will be monitored and actioned when the risk factor changes. When you report defects online and include your email address, we can send you back the outcome of our inspection.