Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters • Hacker News Board

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#221

Post by kiliantics » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 8:02 PM UTC

megaremote wrote: post #187

rconti wrote: post #163

Tangentially related; I can't fathom why the US insists on stop signs and traffic lights everywhere. A neighborhood I used to drive through on my way to work had 4 way stops sprouting up constantly. The massive waste of resources involved in hauling 2 tons of steel and glass down from speed to 0, for _absolutely no reason 99% of the time_, accelerating it back up to speed again, just to do the same, over and over, bo…

> The massive waste of resources involved in hauling 2 tons of steel and glass down from speed to 0 Even without slowing down this is huge waste of resources. The fact we allow people to do this is insane. > When I rule the world, there will be a ban on 4-way stops, red arrows, and parking lots without walkways. You are insane if you think you can make cars safe. They should just not be around people at all.

Yes, somehow whenever these issues come up, it never leads to a suggestion of banning cars. Instead, there is an "angels on a pin" dissection of some obscure details that will supposedly fix the problem but that completely misses the point: cars are killing us all (pollution, carbon, obesity, degradation of city life) and need to be generally rejected for common use.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#222

Post by hinkley » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

kube-system wrote: post #126

hinkley wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno about no plastic but there may be less plastic tires. Maybe. When I last bought new tires, I found out that tires lose a ton of their performance even at 50% wear rating. I thought I was doing well picking better tires than factory for my vehicles but it turns out any new tire would have had better handling because it was new. As is common, people don't talk about the problems with their product until they ha…

There are also significant decreases in performance due to wear isn't due to the material itself, but also the change in geometry. For instance, when rain grooves wear down, they're not able to channel away as much water.

Yeah that was another of their tricks. Bury sipes into the rubber so that new ones open as the old ones wear out.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#223

Post by manigandham » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 10:11 PM UTC

technofiend wrote: post #215

manigandham wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. If a New York to LA trip goes from 5 to 25 hours then it's no longer viable. Unfortunately the radius that trains can be competitive barely reaches from LA to SF.

>Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. That depends entirely on the distance traveled; no one is suggesting a replacement of transcontinental flights with trains. But there's plenty of medium and short haul flights (for example) that would be far more comfortable on a train with little difference in total travel time once you've factored airport security overhead. I'll give you a practical example:…

Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable.

Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place?

This is the problem with CA's high speed rail line. They ended up placing both ends in the middle of nowhere when even the LA->SF route would have barely gotten the ridership needed to work.

Planes can reroute all the time and independently control schedules and payloads to account for actual passenger demand, while also only needing an airport on either end which already exist.

If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do?

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#224

Post by manigandham » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 10:12 PM UTC

technofiend wrote: post #215

manigandham wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. Passengers will trade better wifi, food, space, etc, in exchange for longer travel times but only up to a point. If a New York to LA trip goes from 5 to 25 hours then it's no longer viable. Unfortunately the radius that trains can be competitive barely reaches from LA to SF.

>Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. That depends entirely on the distance traveled; no one is suggesting a replacement of transcontinental flights with trains. But there's plenty of medium and short haul flights (for example) that would be far more comfortable on a train with little difference in total travel time once you've factored airport security overhead. I'll give you a practical example:…

Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable.

Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place?

Planes can reroute all the time and independently control schedules and payloads to account for actual passenger demand, while also only needing an airport on either end which already exist.

If a train was built, you'd be paying 10x more for a ticket than the airline. Is that something you would do? Something many others would do? Just to get there at basically the same time in the end?

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#225

Post by RandomInteger4 » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 2:56 AM UTC

roflchoppa2 wrote: post #217

RandomInteger4 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe California should worry about having adequate affordable housing before worrying about where said housing is located.

yeah fuck em, lets just put them next to the oil distilleries in Richmond. freeway and air pollutants.

A cheaper home next to a freeway is probably healthier than living on the street.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#226

Post by robocat » Fri, Oct 04, 2019, 12:06 PM UTC

dajohnson89 wrote: post #36

likpok wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ford was shipping cars with asbestos brakes in 1993. Asbestos brakes are still readily available on the aftermarket. Brake pads since 2015 sold in California and Washington must have less than 0.1% asbestos by weight (it's unclear to me if that's asbestos alone, or asbestos and other heavy metals like cadmium or mercury). Since the ban was put into place in 2015, you can reasonably infer a) that there were brake pads…

the subway brakes in washington dc are abestos brakes. you can smell them quite strongly.

"Asbestos was used on Metro's cars when they first started running in 1976, but only a few of the asbestos pads remain in service." - written in 1980 in Washington Post - see link in sibling comment.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#227

Post by technofiend » Sat, Oct 05, 2019, 4:49 AM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #223

technofiend wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Current technologies are too far behind in speed though. That depends entirely on the distance traveled; no one is suggesting a replacement of transcontinental flights with trains. But there's plenty of medium and short haul flights (for example) that would be far more comfortable on a train with little difference in total travel time once you've factored airport security overhead. I'll give you a practical example:…

Sure, but then I'll point to my other comments that politically and economically this isn't viable. Adding a train line requires an immense real-estate investment, likely with lots of battles with existing land owners who don't want to sell. After that, you're stuck with that route whether it makes money or not, and how many riders really travel between those cities in the first place? This is the problem with CA's h…

Anti rail sentiment has been with us since the advent of rail itself and really the arguments haven't changed.

https://www.archives.gov/files/education/lessons/anti-rail/i...

The same arguments against rail can be made (for example) against new roads and exactly for the same reasons: they just go one place, you have to fight land owners to put them in and what if no one uses them?

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#228

Post by takk309 » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 7:46 PM UTC

bonestamp2 wrote: post #213

takk309 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be being a bit of a pedant but do you mean roundabout? Traffic circles and roundabouts are different. A traffic circle, in the modern sense, does not have much horizontal deflection on the entering legs. The diameter is also smaller and there is not a truck apron. A roundabout on the other hand has some form of horizontal deflection and a truck apron. Often times a traffic circle can be installed by placing a r…

You are correct, it is technically a roundabout. $1.3 million for a single lane roundabout with a raised median. Does that cost sound reasonable?

It really depends on the agency building the roundabout and the property values at the intersection. For example a rural intersect near me just got a single lane roundabout and it cost $3.2 million. The agency building it prefer a lot of concrete over asphalt. Other states can build them for less if they use asphalt.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#229

Post by takk309 » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 7:47 PM UTC

souprock wrote: post #192

takk309 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I may be being a bit of a pedant but do you mean roundabout? Traffic circles and roundabouts are different. A traffic circle, in the modern sense, does not have much horizontal deflection on the entering legs. The diameter is also smaller and there is not a truck apron. A roundabout on the other hand has some form of horizontal deflection and a truck apron. Often times a traffic circle can be installed by placing a r…

Traffic circles and roundabouts don't exist. Those things are all called rotaries. The tiny ones are inherently defective, especially for large vehicles. The larger rotaries can be nice, especially when installed above a freeway that intersects with low-volume roads, but they are too costly unless the land is very cheap. A decent use of a rotary is in Massachusetts where Drum Hill Road and Old Westford Road meet US 4…

A rotary has higher speeds and entering traffic gets the right-of-way. They are very different from a roundabout.

Re: Car tires biggest likely source of microplastics in California coastal waters

#230

Post by jjtheblunt » Tue, Oct 08, 2019, 9:59 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #107

jjtheblunt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

just made me think the efficiency depends upon the utilization, so it's high when many ride and low when not.

But it doesn't take many mass transit riders to make that vehicle more efficient than a single-occupancy car.

true!