this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
77 points (98.7% liked)

Toronto

1625 readers
39 users here now

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Friends:
Support lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Drusas@kbin.social 66 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If a single location consistently has a problem with speeding drivers, you've got a poorly designed road.

[–] ebits21@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Definitely. And yet they never seem to redesign the roads for the speed we want.

[–] frostbiker@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's redesign streets for the benefit of the people who live there, rather than the speed and convenience of the cars that drive through. I'm sick of the noisy and dangerous traffic around the place where I live, and I can't afford to move.

[–] Numpty@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stroads... Canada is FULL of them. I wish they'd design streets here like they do in the Netherlands. I lived there for years and it was awesome.

[–] EhForumUser@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Stroads: The infrastructure that sucks for everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, transit users, and drivers all the same.

But that's the Canadian way. Everyone gets a trophy. We're too "polite" to pick a favourite. We hope that in doing so we can make everyone happy, but end up making everyone unhappy.

The people of the Netherlands are known for being much more, let's say, blunt. They're not afraid to choose a winner.

[–] Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

How else do they get money from the people?

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Just need speed bumps. Speed bumps every few blocks on every street where the limits are below 60km/h. There's no more sure way short of rebuilding the entire roads.

[–] Overzeetop@beehaw.org -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

There's a study that says most pollution from passenger vehicles is from tire dust.

[–] shamrt@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] notfromhere@lemmy.one 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] SkepticElliptic@beehaw.org 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 1 points 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 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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 0 points 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 -1 points 1 year ago

...thats constant speed.

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

[–] argv_minus_one@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Feature, not bug. It's a revenue-enhancing device, not a safety-enhancing device. These things usually cause crashes rather than prevent them.

[–] krnl386@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

Just add bike lanes on both sides. :P /s