I wonder if the pollution from electric vehicles is worse because of their torque curves...
Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
111–120 of 336 posts
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
This fact is especially pertinent when folks with their F150s demand that road bikes be taxed equally to use bike lanes.
Taxing by fourth power axel weight per mile sounds good $10 for a bike doing 1000 miles a year, so 1 cent a mile. Gross axel weight about 100lb. So axel weight of 1000lb would be $100 a mile. F150 at 2500lb would be $4,000 a mile. I suggest putting the first year on the sale price, so that $200 bike costs $210, and the $60k f150 costs $60 million.
Perhaps a inverse tax tied to economic output of that vehicle. The higher the economic contribution of the vehicle, the lower the tax. So a recreational cyclist pays more than a delivery truck because the delivery truck is contributing to the economy and not simply joyriding.
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well maybe because it's a total nonsense argument? Unless you actually want to kill all road transport and everything reliant on it, which is effectively everything, in which case I also think it's clear why you're not getting any replies.
Per my other comment [1], it’s nonsense to actually collect $4000, but it’s not nonsense to have the ratios work like that. Such a tax would eliminate marginal uses of trucks but not eliminate trucks entirely (since it would be a higher but not ridiculous tax). It also works as a reductio against any wear-based tax on bikes, since it would imply an absurd tax on trucks. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=225190…
You are missing that the cost of bike lanes isn't just in constructing and maintaining them. Adding bike lanes in cities means dropping car lanes because there's not enough space. That ends up creating potentially huge opportunity costs.
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#114Wow the hit pieces against EV adoption are getting more desperate and creative. This blog is just comical.
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Road wear scales with the fourth power of axle load, so heavier vehicles do much more damage than one might expect. Yes. Electric vehicles with their heavy batteries also make things worse.
Except no. The heaviest Tesla Model 3 weighs 4,100 lbs. The heaviest Ford F-150 (the most popular vehicle in the US) weighs 5,600 lbs.
You are comparing an F150 with a Tesla 3?
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per my other comment [1], it’s nonsense to actually collect $4000, but it’s not nonsense to have the ratios work like that. Such a tax would eliminate marginal uses of trucks but not eliminate trucks entirely (since it would be a higher but not ridiculous tax). It also works as a reductio against any wear-based tax on bikes, since it would imply an absurd tax on trucks. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=225190…
You are missing that the cost of bike lanes isn't just in constructing and maintaining them. Adding bike lanes in cities means dropping car lanes because there's not enough space. That ends up creating potentially huge opportunity costs.
I wasn’t missing that, I just wasn’t addressing it; I was just addressing how to assess maintenance taxes. If there are other costs of having the road there, like its real estate usage, I agree that’s another factor to consider.
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except no. The heaviest Tesla Model 3 weighs 4,100 lbs. The heaviest Ford F-150 (the most popular vehicle in the US) weighs 5,600 lbs.
A Toyota Camry weights 3600lbs, so it's not like EVs are extraordinary heavy either. Additionally, 15 gallons of gas is about 100lbs.
15 gallons of gas is 90 pounds.
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#118Cecil Adams of "The Straight Dope" had a column about this issue back in 2006:
https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2661/when-the-rubb...
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
My understanding was always that tires produce a lot of particulates but they are fairly large and heavy; most of them fall out of the air very quickly. If that's true it could be true that cars emit lots of PM from tyre wear but must of it never reaches detectors and can reasonably be ignored. That doesn't necessarily invalidate the overall point: that we reduced PM from exhaust enough that other still unregulated s…
Fall out of the air. Into the sewers. Then into the rivers, and then the sea, where they are broken up into microplastics and return in the food chain.
Rubber turns into microplastics?
Re: Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taxing by fourth power axel weight per mile sounds good $10 for a bike doing 1000 miles a year, so 1 cent a mile. Gross axel weight about 100lb. So axel weight of 1000lb would be $100 a mile. F150 at 2500lb would be $4,000 a mile. I suggest putting the first year on the sale price, so that $200 bike costs $210, and the $60k f150 costs $60 million.
Perhaps a inverse tax tied to economic output of that vehicle. The higher the economic contribution of the vehicle, the lower the tax. So a recreational cyclist pays more than a delivery truck because the delivery truck is contributing to the economy and not simply joyriding.
That seems too easy to game, and the system might have low compliance. Who's to say when a person is joyriding vs commuting to work on a bicycle? If we're taxing based on the economic output (which we hopefully already are via income/sales taxes), does the time value of goods being transported now get included in the calculation?