General Motors Channels Its Inner Gollum: Hangs...
Speeds bumps killing the environment

Speeds bumps killing the environment

Ralph Hanson January 27th, 2008 Ralph Hanson By Ralph Hanson Author January 27th, 2008
  • Articles Contributed: 1801
  • Comments Posted: 0
  • Leaderboard Rank: N/A

December 31st, 1969 We all know slowing down for a speed bump and then accelerating back to your original speed saps your fuel, but now a recent study commissioned by the UK’s AA motoring group has found out just how bad it really is. Researchers found that a car capable of achieving 58mgp fuel economy when cruising at an uninterrupted 30mph speed would only deliver 31mpg when it’s forced to slow down for a series of speed bumps. Along with the added fuel consumption also come all the other nasties of burning more fuel, namely, increased pollution. The study found that reducing speed limits to 20mph from 30mph affected fuel consumption and emissions (10% higher), as most engines are calibrated for maximum efficiency at higher speeds. Another group previously found that carbon monoxide emissions are increased by as much as 82% and nitrous oxide levels by 37% on roads with speed bumps. The ideal solution, researchers say, would be to strictly enforce maximum speed limits and do away with the speed bumps altogether. What the studies haven’t addressed is the damage to a car’s suspension system, unnecessary brake wear, and the unbearable scrapes to a car’s underbody caused by driving over speed bumps with poorly designed and steep ramps. There’s nothing worse than when driving an ultra-low sports car and hearing a crunch as the front bumper gets a good taste of the road.
Speeds bumps killing the environment

Speeds bumps killing the environment

Enlarge Photo

We all know slowing down for a speed bump and then accelerating back to your original speed saps your fuel, but now a recent study commissioned by the UK’s AA motoring group has found out just how bad it really is. Researchers found that a car capable of achieving 58mgp fuel economy when cruising at an uninterrupted 30mph speed would only deliver 31mpg when it’s forced to slow down for a series of speed bumps. Along with the added fuel consumption also come all the other nasties of burning more fuel, namely, increased pollution.

The study found that reducing speed limits to 20mph from 30mph affected fuel consumption and emissions (10% higher), as most engines are calibrated for maximum efficiency at higher speeds. Another group previously found that carbon monoxide emissions are increased by as much as 82% and nitrous oxide levels by 37% on roads with speed bumps.

The ideal solution, researchers say, would be to strictly enforce maximum speed limits and do away with the speed bumps altogether.

What the studies haven’t addressed is the damage to a car’s suspension system, unnecessary brake wear, and the unbearable scrapes to a car’s underbody caused by driving over speed bumps with poorly designed and steep ramps. There’s nothing worse than when driving an ultra-low sports car and hearing a crunch as the front bumper gets a good taste of the road.

Tags: Odds and ends, Trends

Posted in: News


Comments (5 total)

Meet the top commenters on the Leaderboard

  1. By Ade #1, Posted: 1/27/2008

    Speed bumps are annoying, irritating and damaging to the car.

    BUT they save lives, keep drivers on their toes, and gives confidence to pedestrians. Keep the bumps!

  2. By Gus #2, Posted: 1/28/2008

    That just seems silly, there aren't speed bumps along the entire stretch of road, it's like saying let's get rid of stop signs and stop lights, those ruin fuel economy as well!
    Silly.
    Speed bumps do slow people down where they really need to, and although I hate them, I know they are needed.

  3. By Alister #3, Posted: 1/28/2008

    You take out speed bumps and put in its place a speed camera. This would be simple as all the government would have to do is remove the cameras from the free ways, country lanes, and any of my favorite apex's and relocate them to a culdesac/side street near you. Of course this most likley will not happen as there is no volume down a residential street and lets face it camera's exist to drive revenue and not to reduce speeding and to protect little jimmy playing ball with his mates out front.

  4. By STIG #4, Posted: 1/28/2008

    come to jordan and see the speed pumps
    in each street there are more that 2 speed pumbs
    whch are bigger than everist

  5. By HECTOR #5, Posted: 1/28/2008

    LMAO! Guys, the Brits and their study aren't complaining about the proper placement of speed bumps. I read awhile ago an article on *traffic calming measures* in London.

    Besides thousands of cameras (all dedicated to parting your money from you), painted signs on the ground blighting ancient London sights and confusing traffic patterns there are speed bumps everywhere it seems. So many, in fact, that the article stated ambulance drivers had complained of loosing more than one patient due to having to slow down over them.

    In my building complex I have to go over 5 speed bumps in order to get to my parking space but, as much as I hate them (and think they should be better designed) I know they're necessary. But imagine a series of speed bumps in the middle on a road where they shouldn't be. Imagine a road where the speed is, say, 30mph and there are speed bumps to enforce it because you, the driver, are a menace to society and only Big Government can protect innocent pedestrians from you. Or speed bumps in front of schools to enforce the 15mph rule, whether school is in session or not.

    No, gentlemen, this is nothing but another example of the utter imbecilty and anti-motorist sentiments of some people (Ken Livingston I'm looking at you) in power. I truly hope next time an ambulance is forced to slow down for speed bumps it's him inside.

Post a Comment

Post anonymously
Sign In |
will stay private
your 'posted by' name will link to the URL

More from MotorAuthority

More from High Gear Media