Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 100

Thread: Finally, the truth about speed bumps and low speed limits

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778

    Finally, the truth about speed bumps and low speed limits

    Speed bumps 'bad for the environment'

    AA says they can increase fuel consumption

    New research from the AA claims introducing speed humps on some roads can actually damage the environment.
    The motoring organisation also says slashing speed limits from 30 to 20 miles per hour (mph) can also increase CO2 emissions by 10%.
    The research found that the average car achieves 58.15 miles per gallon (mpg) at a steady speed of 30mph.
    But if you introduce humps, the fuel consumption drops to 30.85mpg.
    Fuel consumption

    Simply cutting a speed limit from 30 to 20mph would also increase an average car’s fuel consumption by 5.8mpg.
    The AA argues there needs to be further research into the environmental impact of 20mph zones before they become more widespread.
    AA President Edmund King said: ‘Transport and highways planners have little or no official guidance on the environmental impact of 20mph speed limits.
    ‘It would be a bitter and unpalatable irony if local authorities, which have targeted owners of larger vehicles with environmental charges, are found guilty of pumping up CO2 emissions through indiscriminate use of 20 mph restrictions.’
    He added: ‘We need independent research to ascertain both the safety and environmental implications of 20mph zones so that authorities don't make a huge and widespread environmental mistake.’
    Accident blackspots

    Which? motoring editor Richard Headland said: 'We agree there's a need for some further research in this area, as although 20 mph areas appear to save lives - especially in urban accident blackspots - it's true that most cars will use more fuel at 20 mph instead of 30 mph.
    'That said, this research suggests that 20mph zones could be far less environmentally damaging than more widespread use of speed humps - which are also accused of increasing wear on a cars brakes and suspension.'
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Aberdeen
    Posts
    2,975
    This is symptomonious of britains percieved attitude to the envirenment/resource consumption. What i mean is that the envirenment matters if it can give people (the public mostly) guilt trips, boost a politicians publicity or make someone feel better than other people because they drive a prius.

    If politicians/counsellers where serious then issues like the above would be addressed. You could also say that these speed bumps etc are sponsored by consumable parts suppliers/makers but that would be silly. Also traffic layout in general, so traffic lights, lane, junction and roundabouts are designed to make smoother driving a possibility.
    Last edited by jediali; 01-30-2008 at 03:31 AM.
    autozine.org

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    For Tax Purposes, Cayman Islands
    Posts
    14,580
    You can see where this is going, can't you.

    Driving Fast is seen as reckless, unsafe and a recipe for disaster.

    Driving Slowly is considered environmentally damaging, cost ineffective and a waste of resources.

    They don't want us driving at all. </conspiracy>
    <cough> www.charginmahlazer.tumblr.com </cough>

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Northampton, Pennsylvania
    Posts
    7,989
    OMFGTEHSKYISFALLINGLOLOLOLHAXORWTFBBQ

    Speed bumps suck cause I'm low.
    [O o)O=\x/=O(o O]

    The things we do for girls who won't sleep with us.

    Patrick says:
    dads is too long so it wont fit
    so i took hers out
    and put mine in

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    "Finally, the truth about speed bumps..."

    What is "finally" about it?

    People have known and have been saying that speed bumps don't work for over a decade, and nothing has ever been done about them, just as nothing will be done about them after this new press release.

    FACT - Cars are evil, driving cars fast (30mph+) kills the planet, children and possibly kittens.

    Any deviation from that is a blatant lie by "boy racers" who just want to drive everywhere really fast in their high performance sports cars (1.2 Corsa + bodykit) whilst simultaneously happy slapping grannies, drinking cider, stabbing people and smoking crack.

    After a decade they work fine though.
    Thanks for all the fish

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks View Post
    What is "finally" about it?

    People have known and have been saying that speed bumps don't work for over a decade, and nothing has ever been done about them, just as nothing will be done about them after this new press release..
    Suggested read again.
    The AA are reporting their results and asking the government to now address proper studies.
    In the past complaints about them "not working" were ignored as it wasn't compulsive.
    NOW using the "green card" the government and local authorities are going to find it very difficult to avoid researching it properly
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    The AA are reporting their results and asking the government to now address proper studies.
    In the past complaints about them "not working" were ignored as it wasn't compulsive.
    They can ask the government whatever they like, it doesn't oblige the government to respond, and just like the countless other times serious organisations have raised "concerns" about the damages done by speed humps it will be ignored and drop out of the news and nothing will be done.

    It is like the Jaguar F-Type that is gracing magazine covers this week - lots of talk every few years and then nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    NOW using the "green card" the government and local authorities are going to find it very difficult to avoid researching it properly
    So when the emergency services providing information which suggests that people are dying because of delays caused by speed humps isn't enough to get anything done, but the "green card" is what will swing it?

    I doubt it.

    Cold, hard government fact - driving fast kills people and the planet, QED all cars must go slow. The end.

    Driving fast could end all war and cure cancer, but the government would still not budge on the matter.
    Thanks for all the fish

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Think about it , cs .... How many deaths get reported on front pages of the nationals ?
    Yet every newspaper and magazine in the world now plays the green card.
    It sells, it pressurises politicians and motivates a very vocal part fo the community
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,273
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Think about it , cs .... How many deaths get reported on front pages of the nationals ?
    Only the one, but 11 years and it is still going strong.

    Which national was this front page news on?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Yet every newspaper and magazine in the world now plays the green card.
    It sells, it pressurises politicians and motivates a very vocal part fo the community
    Where you've gone wrong there is when you applied logic.

    It isn't going to happen, no matter how much good sense it makes.

    This is the Government that wants to waste endless billions on wind turbines to be "green" despite the fact that they will need the same amount of power from coal and gas stations on demand in case a good wind isn't blowing across the entire country every day of the year...

    The same government that refuses to improve public transport, despite the "green" appeal.

    They can have their cake and eat it - cars must be punished for their crimes, even if it does ruin the planet in the process.

    The entire "agenda" is green - therefore as long as they make grand announcements on windmills and putting car companies out of business by imposing low emissions limits, they can ignore trivial things such as the adverse affects of speed humps.

    Even if they are to be removed - all those work men in trucks driving about, generators for the pneumatic drills. All far too damaging to the environment - natural erosion is the solution...
    Last edited by Coventrysucks; 01-30-2008 at 01:11 PM. Reason: Gpod, two down from an ipod.
    Thanks for all the fish

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,805
    Lowering the speed limit isn't going to help- if people want to speed in residential areas, they will, regardless of the speed limit or speed bumps.

    Could adding a speed restrictor to the engine help? My concept is once you enter this area, the radio waves sent to your engine keeps your car from ever going past 35 or so. Whatever the speed is. And then exempt emergency vehicles and etc.

    It could possibly work.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    2,192
    Quote Originally Posted by NSXType-R View Post
    Could adding a speed restrictor to the engine help? My concept is once you enter this area, the radio waves sent to your engine keeps your car from ever going past 35 or so. Whatever the speed is. And then exempt emergency vehicles and etc.

    It could possibly work.
    If people like you made that law, I'd take a contract out on the ringleader...

    The reason? If we let our governments erode our civil liberties and decision-making powers any further, we may as well be slaves. I personally make every reasonable attempt to drive within the law in urban and residential areas, and if I can do it so can others - I don't need or want my car "restricting" by anyone, and I'd be prepared to fight to stop such draconian and totalitarian moves.
    "This is hardcore." - Evo's John Barker on the TVR Tuscan S

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Coventrysucks View Post
    Only the one, but 11 years and it is still going strong.

    Which national was this front page news on?
    The point is not that this is on the front page, but how many green and environment and weather issues are ? Many times more than deaths - sadly
    Where you've gone wrong there is when you applied logic.
    sic
    The entire "agenda" is green - therefore as long as they make grand announcements on windmills and putting car companies out of business by imposing low emissions limits, they can ignore trivial things such as the adverse affects of speed humps.
    What despite the point that's being raised WILL make them a green issue ?
    You seem to have argued a cricle there

    Even if they are to be removed - all those work men in trucks driving about, generators for the pneumatic drills. All far too damaging to the environment - natural erosion is the solution...
    The neds in burberrys and lowered Corsas will do it for us
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    nr Edinburgh, Whisky-soaked Scotland
    Posts
    27,778
    Quote Originally Posted by Clivey View Post
    The reason? If we let our governments erode our civil liberties and decision-making powers any further, we may as well be slaves. I personally make every reasonable attempt to drive within the law in urban and residential areas, and if I can do it so can others - I don't need or want my car "restricting" by anyone, and I'd be prepared to fight to stop such draconian and totalitarian moves.
    What "civil liberty" ?
    Ther eis NO civil liberty that permits the law to be broken.
    So the speed limit is there.
    To break it means you LOSE your civil liberties as determiend by law all the way back to the Magna Carta, even the Queen is limited
    If you make every attempt, then it won't limit your liberties at all ... it will never switch on for you !
    The only ones who it limits are those who try to break the law.
    Are you saying that law-breakers should retain ALL of their civil liberties -- ie freedom, money etc etc no fines ? no points ? no prison ? no consequences ??
    "A woman without curves is like a road without bends, you might get to your destination quicker but the ride is boring as hell'

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    East Coast of the United States
    Posts
    11,805
    Quote Originally Posted by Clivey View Post
    If people like you made that law, I'd take a contract out on the ringleader...

    The reason? If we let our governments erode our civil liberties and decision-making powers any further, we may as well be slaves. I personally make every reasonable attempt to drive within the law in urban and residential areas, and if I can do it so can others - I don't need or want my car "restricting" by anyone, and I'd be prepared to fight to stop such draconian and totalitarian moves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    What "civil liberty" ?
    Ther eis NO civil liberty that permits the law to be broken.
    So the speed limit is there.
    To break it means you LOSE your civil liberties as determiend by law all the way back to the Magna Carta, even the Queen is limited
    If you make every attempt, then it won't limit your liberties at all ... it will never switch on for you !
    The only ones who it limits are those who try to break the law.
    Are you saying that law-breakers should retain ALL of their civil liberties -- ie freedom, money etc etc no fines ? no points ? no prison ? no consequences ??
    Matra's got it right. Nothing's wrong with the radio thingy. I'm sure the ACLU (American Civil Liberty Union) will go wild over it.

    Once you leave the residential area, you're free to speed to your heart's desire.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Derby, England
    Posts
    2,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    If you make every attempt, then it won't limit your liberties at all ... it will never switch on for you !
    The only ones who it limits are those who try to break the law.
    Peter, Peter...it's obvious you skip-read. I'm a law student, therefore I think like a law student. I used the phrase "in urban and residential areas" - I don't "speed" in those areas; I never mentioned any other (country roads, motorways etc.).

    In fact, I do "speed" on country roads, motorways and the like, when I feel it is safe to do so and I'm in the mood for "enthusiastic" driving, as I'm certain that you and the majority of drivers do.

    I simply don't want any "nanny device" limiting my decision-making capabilities or my "playtime" any further. If I were limited to 70mph on Motorways there'd be nothing to do but steer and I'm betting there'd only be more accidents as a result of people getting bored or falling asleep! We're already suffering from allowing drivers to become too detached from the driving experience to be properly in control of the vehicle, all this would do is make the situation worse!

    Add to that the probability of us drivers being forced to pay for said "nanny devices" to be installed in our cars, and can you truthfully say you'd support such a system?

    Furthermore, do you really think that the future of personal transport should be "limited"? Surely the future should dictate that we should arrive at our destination quicker? How are we going to do that if we pander to ancient, impractical and unworkable laws?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine View Post
    Are you saying that law-breakers should retain ALL of their civil liberties -- ie freedom, money etc etc no fines ? no points ? no prison ? no consequences ??
    I don't know whether you realise, but you've opened a MASSIVE can of worms regarding enforcement of every law, no matter how inappropriate it is. - An ancient by-law in Derby (my home city) actually states that throwing banana skins is illegal (no joke!), so anyone throwing one into a bin for example, should in theory be found guilty of a criminal offence and "lose their civil liberties". And yes, that's just as lame as being convicted of speeding for travelling at 80mph on an empty dual carriageway.

    So to answer your question: "It depends on the law in question."

    There are probably plenty of other extremely important reasons, which I haven't so far covered, why restricting vehicles to the speed limit on every single road is a bad idea. I mean: What would YOU do with your RX-8 or A610? It'd be like having a dick but never being able to use it!
    "This is hardcore." - Evo's John Barker on the TVR Tuscan S

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •