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.
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.
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.
That will certainly fuck the environment, up to tripling the emissions per mile of vehicles. Well done.
There’s a study that says most pollution from passenger vehicles is from tire dust.
Linky?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/tire-particle-pollution-may-be-harming-freshwater-and-estuary-ecosystems/
That says tire pollution is a big problem but I can’t find where it backs up your claim that it’s the biggest pollutant from cars.
So the repeated braking and acceleration will add even more tire dust, making it more than 3x worse?
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.
A more narrow road will also cause drivers to slow down, they could put up barriers for bike lanes and repaint the lines
we could create a system where cars can link together and use a low friction guided surface that doesn’t require rubber tread.
I’ve been optimistic my whole life that cars will be banned by 2030, still not too late
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.
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.
…thats constant speed.
Constantly slowing and accelerating due to speed bumps is horrible for fuel efficiency.