• Overzeetop@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    That will certainly fuck the environment, up to tripling the emissions per mile of vehicles. Well done.

      • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        So the repeated braking and acceleration will add even more tire dust, making it more than 3x worse?

        • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tire degradation comes from heat. Going slower produces less heat and therefore less pollution. On top of that, slower speeds are better for fuel economy as you aren’t dealing with wind resistance as much. That’s why the u.s. set the national speed limit to 55 during the 70s oil crises. Of course today’s cars that use hybrid and cvt transmissions are even more efficient at slower speeds than cars from 50 years ago.

          • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A more narrow road will also cause drivers to slow down, they could put up barriers for bike lanes and repaint the lines

            • SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              we could create a system where cars can link together and use a low friction guided surface that doesn’t require rubber tread.

              • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’ve been optimistic my whole life that cars will be banned by 2030, still not too late

          • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Going slower may produce less heat but does decelerating produce less heat? Some may drive slower but most will speed up and then brake before each speed bump.

            When you brake the tires rubber is what actually slows the vehicle for the most part, and many may skid if they accidentally brake to hard before a speed bump, contributing to more rubber being washed away into nearby catch basins and creeks.

          • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I can accept what you’re saying about heat as true, but I don’t think you’re addressing the issue of repeated acceleration and deceleration as it relates to speed bumps. Some amount of extra tire wear will occur due to the extra forces involved in acceleration and deceleration, regardless of the temperature of the rubber.

            I agree that slower speeds are better for fuel economy due to the wind resistance issue, but that’s very different from saying that a road with speed bumps is better for fuel economy when many of the drivers will be accelerating and braking between each bump, instead of traveling at a constant speed.

          • Stuka@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            …thats constant speed.

            Constantly slowing and accelerating due to speed bumps is horrible for fuel efficiency.