Mexico developing 'smart' speed bumps to increase safety, decrease fuel consumption
Speed bumps are the bane of many an urban driver all around the world. We understand that the little protrusions were first installed to promote safety by getting drivers to slow down in congested areas, but we can't be the only ones that think the dang things have been getting out of hand as of late. Such is apparently the case in Toluca, Mexico, where a company called Decano Industries is working on a new smart speed bump that may both increase safety and decrease fuel consumption. Wait... smart speed bump?Apparently, Decano's innovative devices measure the force of impact from an oncoming vehicle and immediately collapse if the car is traveling the speed limit or below. If a car is moving too fast, the speed bump stays in place, causing the familiar jarring impact we've all come to know and loathe. The government of Mexico City sees enough promise in the technology that its providing grant money to the company and helping get the system patented.
There's more on the line than just controlling speed. A 2006 study by Mexico City Autonomous University found that the constant acceleration and deceleration caused by speed bumps actually causes more pollutants and increases fuel consumption. A slow and steady speed would be much more environmentally friendly. In this instance, it would seem that dumber drivers equals smarter speed bumps. Who knew?
[Source: USA Today | Image: Flickr/boulanger.iE via C.C. 2.0]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
jeffzekas 3:45PM (10/15/2009)
Hurrah for speed bumps!
Yes, I know I am one of the few supporters of such "traffic calming" measures...
But imagine if YOU lived in a quiet, residential neighborhood... the birds are chirping, the kids are playing outside, a soft breeze wafts amongst the trees, when... BLAAAAATTT!!!.. a LOUD Harley Davidson, racing madly past at over 50 miles per hour, blasts and rattles through the calm. Children and animals scatter to escape the oncoming hellion. The calm and quiet has disappeared.
And days later, at a city council meeting convened to discuss noise, the "Harley Man" and thirty of his hirsute, toothless friends argue that it is SAFER (for them, perhaps) to have LOUD, SPEEDING motorbikes RACING down the narrow lanes of town!
So, do some of us want speed bumps? Yes? Traffic circles? Yes? Slower speeds? Yes! Traffic calming in residential areas? Yes! Except for computers, slow is smart, fast is dumb.
And if it takes you longer to get where you are going, so what?
Fast or slow, we ALL will end up in the SAME place, someday! If you doubt me, look at all the headstones down at the graveyard!
Reply
Richard 3:59PM (10/15/2009)
Spoken like a true liberal. Let me tell you, if my mother was dying, I'd run through your house than get to the hospital "a little sooner"! What are you thinking man? If you don't like the noise on your street, move to the country. A Harley, by the way, can make loud noises at idle, so your little theory doesn't hold water. And speeding is because we live in a hectic society where speed is of essence. Otherwise we'd be driving horse buggies.
You gotta love Mexican signs, two boobs and a fart demper!
GoodCheer 5:02PM (10/15/2009)
As a motorcycle driver, I too loath loud motorcycles. Here in Delaware they check the volume of your bike at "half throttle" at inspection, but that fails to keep the stupid-loud bikes that you can hear 3 blocks away off the streets. What right do you have to needlessly intrude into my environment like that. What need do you have for that much attention ("Hey, look at me, look at me, look at me!").
That's one of many reasons I have no respect for the AMA, which claims to lobby for my interests. And no, there is no correlation between volume and safety.
Joeviocoe 5:26PM (10/15/2009)
Um... it seems you have more of a problem with the noise than the speed. And it would be quieter if the motorcycle didn't have to roll the throttle each time he/she hits the speed bump and has to pick up speed to get to the next one.
Since this blog is about cleaner environmental driving, and not about community safety, of course from that perspective speed bumps ARE a negative. And since the article is not advocating removing speed bumps, why are you complaining?
DasBoese 6:42PM (10/15/2009)
There's a reason why the term "noise pollution" exists.
john 3:59PM (10/15/2009)
I like this - a speed bump that rewards safe drivers who obey the speed limit!
Reply
rs 4:43PM (10/15/2009)
I can't help but notice a bit of prejudice in the article as written. That traffic sign pictured and meant to be funny, perhaps mocking, is not even from Mexico nor is it in Spanish. It's caption on the original Flickr account that it was taken from reads "Apparently "Farts dempere" means speed bump in Norwegian....." And, what are you trying to imply in the article with "In this instance, it would seem that dumber drivers equals smarter speed bumps. Who knew?"
I'm sure it is easy to dismiss my accusation of underlying prejudice, but I do believe it is there in the article.
The reactive speed bump is a neat and innovative idea.
Reply
Tormod Henne 6:03AM (10/19/2009)
Yes the text is norwegian. Fart = speed, dempere = dampers.
You gotta love all those norwegian words that coincidetally mean totally different words in english. (e.g. bra = good)
Joeviocoe 5:48PM (10/15/2009)
I would suggest combining radar or laser speed sensors rather than impact sensors. Like some warning indicators.
Since the sight of speed bumps will cause most people to slow down way below the speed limit to about 5 mph and still have to accelerate to 25 mph or whatever. So the driver will think its a normal bump and slow to 5 mph only to have nothing happen but still need to speed up afterward.
But if the road is marked with indicators of possible bumps (yellow) and raised speed bumps (red) determined by the speed of the car, the driver can be trained to go "just below the stated limit".
You can even use those fancy "energy harvesting speed bumps paddles" like the burger king driveways.
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/09/16/burger-king-employs-motionpower-to-produce-electricity-from-driv/
Reply
KK 5:51PM (10/15/2009)
I love this idea.
I've lived on residential streets where most drivers go twice as fast as the speed limit, and it's hazardous to walk across the street. Clearly we can't rely on posted speed limits or drivers' common sense to make the street safer.
But conventional speed bumps are annoying at all speeds. It's arguably *more* jarring at lower speeds. I always obey the speed limit but even I find myself looking for routes that have the minimum number of speed bumps, and sometimes speeding *up* to smooth out the bump. An active speed bump would solve these issues.
My only remaining concern is whether an active speed bump would react to a bicycle. I'm guessing not.
Reply
onlineo 6:33PM (10/15/2009)
I remember reading about these in England ages ago, (there is a 2001 rewscientist article on google, but I heard about it elsewhere). No idea what has happened to them now, although after a quick google I see that Dunlop Transcalm speed bumps do just this.
I have no idea if this product works, but if it does (and they have been around the best part of a decade) I dare say they are thoroughly patented and could just be bought rather than doing all the R&D someone else has already done.
Reply
joshualondon 11:32PM (10/15/2009)
FARTS... to funny
Reply
Ernie 3:33PM (10/16/2009)
Ugh. The way speed bumps increase fuel consumption is people who insist on slamming on the brakes only for the speed bumps, then slam on the gas after they've passed them. Instead of teaching the lesson of "slow down asshole before you kill one of our kids", people just "work around" the "problem".
The problem is impatience. Being a motorist exacerbates the problem in many people, which is why motorists and cyclists are at odds with each other.
Personally, I would much rather remove people from the equation altogether and put robots in charge of driving. Cars would be 95% more safe right now if that were the case, even with the problems inherent with putting a dumb computer in charge of a car. This would also solve the myriad other problems of driver distraction, driver drunkenness, driver tiredness, and a bunch of other factors that make streets so damn dangerous in the first place.
Reply
Joeviocoe 6:33PM (10/16/2009)
The letter of the law is in the wording...
"For the vehicular solution (tested on a commercial road):
Innowattech's vehicular system's harvesting potential is an average of 250 kWh per hour from a 1 km stretch of a highway (one way, one lane), assuming 600-800 trucks/buses per hour"
Potential!
Here is the math they most likely used:
drop the hour from both sides of the equation giving 250kw = 700 trucks over 1 km
divide by 700 to give about 357 watts per 1 truck for each 1 km of road
divide by 1,000 to get .357 (or 1/3 of a watt) for each meter that a truck drives across.
I think that is feasible for even inefficient piezoelectric.
Reverse engineering is beautiful.
But I am not on their side at all. I think it is economically unreasonable to think that 1 kilometer can be cheaply installed underneath the road during contruction when compared to just installing a non-elastic material that would save that 1/3rd of watt per meter rather than power street/traffic lights.
But the potential math does add up to the energy wasted by the elasticity of a few centimeters thick piece of asphalt. But I need a civil engineer to confirm this.
*I do admit that I was wrong in previous posts*
Just do the math from their above claims and you can see that although the assumption of 600-800 trucks is not likely to occur, even if that never happens, the claim is for only 1/3rd of a watt for each meter that a vehicle as heavy as a truck would drive on. Not world saving but enough to be legit.
Reply
Tormod Henne 6:13AM (10/19/2009)
You are absolutely right. If the speed limit is 25 then you can pass the speed bumb doing 25 mph AND you are not supposed to exeed 25 mph between speed bumps so the uneven speed problem is made up by people who are determined not to obey the law. Constant speed at the limit is the solution.
Reply