Yes! Speed is good for the environment!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Venari
  • 18 comments
  • 1,041 views
I hate them, especially the black and yellow ones. They force me to slow right down to a crawl because my low profiles and sport suspension really dont agree with them one bit!
 
Although while, yes, the article makes complete sense, they seem to work pretty good for controlling traffic. We can't have everybody flying down small roads packed with kids at 30 mph.
 
The caption in the photograph, "Speed bumps are to blame for the melting of the ice caps," is FAR too strong. However, they do make a point, there, but...they seem to be dissappearing in my area.

yeah, speed bumps are rare as hen's teeth around here, mostly in store parking lots, but they're even dissappearing from THERE. I can only think of one public highway that has (intentional) speed humps, and that's Prospect Drive in Peoria. They're nuisances to most.

Coming up to another intersection, they used to have "Wake Up" buzzer strips across the road, but these were removed with a repaving. It seems traffic control devices just aren't getting replaced around here.
 
And what percentage of the time are we going over speed bumps?

I don't think that is the question. I think they're asking "how much gas could we save if every car that went over these five speed bumps didn't have to slow down for them?" It seems that there are quite a few speed "humps" around me, so I find myself going over them pretty frequently. There are four stretches of road with them less than five minutes from my house. And those are just what came to my head right away.
 
You know I'm all for "conspiracies" but, this report that they cause pollution is kinda a little obvious... lol

As much as I hate them, I'd rather have them around than excessive speed + idiots behind the wheel = people dead

Oh, and we might as well get rid of stop lights too. Thought damn things are even more guilty of creating pollution. My gas mileage goes to such hell because of them too. xD
 
Why do people automatically think that if we took the speedbumps away from roads that people would then all of a sudden drive down that road at 60mph?

I and others seem to drive at 30mph completely fine on all the roads with no speed bumps...
 
Why do people automatically think that if we took the speedbumps away from roads that people would then all of a sudden drive down that road at 60mph?
That's a good point. The road to my school is as smooth as any average upstate New York road (meaning, better than Michigan, at least), yet no one feel the need to go flying down it at twice the limit.
Maybe if you could prove that the speed bumps were placed there to counter that if it was already happen you could argue it, but otherwise it is just baseless conjecture.

Besides, I have personally seen speedbumps that have ripped open fuel tanks when they were driven over, so they aren't the best thing regardless of if they lower speeds.
 
You know I'm all for "conspiracies" but, this report that they cause pollution is kinda a little obvious... lol

As much as I hate them, I'd rather have them around than excessive speed + idiots behind the wheel = people dead

Oh, and we might as well get rid of stop lights too. Thought damn things are even more guilty of creating pollution. My gas mileage goes to such hell because of them too. xD

please don't bring common sense and reason into this thread.:scared:


moderators, can you delete his post please!!!!!


+1 chief
 
When Brenner Bird and Fortune did a sketch impersonating Bush he was saying speed is good because you get there faster so you spend less time on the road, so your polluting less! :lol:

He then said everybody fly... if your flying your not in you car, so thats a good thing! :lol:

Robin
 
The people of Cambridgeshire seem to have made a similar discovery.


In all seriousness, this has got to be the silliest report. If speed bumps help save someone at the cost "hurting" the environment, then go for it. Not like the ice caps would stop melting if we removed them.
 
Speed bumps are a menace, to the environment, drivers and vehicles and even people who have nothing to do with cars.

They decrease fuel efficiency.
They can cause back damage if not seen or travelled over repetitively.
They can damage suspension components, scrape exhausts and speed "cushions" are notrious for causing wear on the inside edge of tyres which isn't noticed in when tyres are only looked over quickly.
And they even make it difficult for ambulances to carry spinal injuries and even sensitive bone breaks.

Hell I'd take (and do) speed cameras over speed bumps.

If you haven't guessed already, I hate them. Between my house and work, there's 15 speed cushions. I make this journey twice a week. I also make a point of not returning over them and take a route that takes longer and has a speed camera on it as preference. Increased fuel consumption, more time through residential areas.

There are 21 speed cushions/raised crossings (which I actually don't mind so much) between my house and my girlfriends if I take the quickest route. Instead I now go through a housing estate, past a speed camera, and through residential roads because I hate speed cushions that much.

Serious, all these things do is drive people to buy anything with raised suspension and a wide wheelbase, which tends to mean greater fuel consumption and more severe pedestrian injury in an accident.
 
This proves that diesel can do more to help save the environment than just improve fuel economy. :sly:
 
My gripe with speed bumps is that the environment immediately surrounding the edges speed bump is damaged as people try to circumvent them: Grass is replaced with mud in most cases.

Yet, when put to vote, people nearly unanimously wanted them in my neighborhood. They put them on the road that nobody speeds on, anyhow. They smart thing to do would have been to put them just a few feet from a stop sign, since that's how far more accidents occur.

Everyday, I think my neighborhood has been unknowingly brainwashed by Herman Tilke.
 
Back