Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

Post by jbay808 » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #112

iso947 wrote: post #78

Earlier 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.

Post by labawi » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

ajross wrote: post #28

the8472 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Smoke" is underselling it a bit. Tyre wear creates PM2.5, which is toxic. I don't consider that outright misleading in comparison to misstating an upper bound as a tight bound.

As described in the article, the number they used for the "1000x" comparison wasn't PM2.5 due to car exhaust. It was PM2.5 IN car exhaust, which is quite literally the thing we call "smoke". The vast majority of smog particles due to automobile traffic appear in the atmosphere as reaction products, they aren't in the exhaust.

Post by hinkley » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #86

gambiting wrote: post #77

I also wonder about pollution from shoes with plastic soles - pretty much every pair I have ever owned, the sole just wears out gradually until there's nothing left. Where does this plastic go? It's just ground into fine powder and stays on our pavements? Is then washed with rainwater and goes into our soil? How come this isn't a problem yet? Or if it is - why isn't anyone talking about it?

Because plastic is not a significant pollutant. What's next, we're going to remove soil from the environment? Soil is full of, mold, bacteria, virus, metals, minerals, fungi, urine, feces, decomposed insects, thousands of chemicals like rust, alumina, silica, heavy metals, many carcinogens, lung irritants etc. It can give you "Farmer ’s Lung" and it's _everywhere_ in nature. Plastic is quite clean and tame by compari…

Post by hinkley » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

computerphage wrote: post #144

BenoitEssiambre wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because plastic is not a significant pollutant. What's next, we're going to remove soil from the environment? Soil is full of, mold, bacteria, virus, metals, minerals, fungi, urine, feces, decomposed insects, thousands of chemicals like rust, alumina, silica, heavy metals, many carcinogens, lung irritants etc. It can give you "Farmer ’s Lung" and it's _everywhere_ in nature. Plastic is quite clean and tame by compari…

Can someone substantively reply instead of just downvoting this comment?

Post by pas » Sun, Mar 08, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

hinkley wrote: post #150

ajnin wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know if that soot came from exhaust, tyres, or something else ?

We moved a young coworker into a first floor appt in downtown and there was black soot on all the windowsills. I taught him about soap and vinegar and we suggested an air filter and being judicious with opening the windows, or finding a window fan with a prefilter. It had just not occurred to me that the busses and trucks were pumping out that much soot in the modern era.