Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions?

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:46 AM UTC

bigiain wrote: post #288

kungtotte wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're torn up from the road and rubbed off from the tyres themselves. The majority is obviously coming from the road. There's been studies done here in Sweden since we've banned studded winter tyres in some areas of Stockholm in an effort to reduce road wear and improve air quality. I don't know of any sources in English off the top of my head though. The last time I read an article about it though (2+ years ago, d…

>They're torn up from the road and rubbed off from the tyres themselves. The majority is obviously coming from the road. Not sure even that adds up to believable. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is about 500m long between the pylons. It has "more than 150,000 cars per day" on it (according to the snippet from a google search). If all of that was from the road, that'd mean there's about 160 tons of road getting torn up per…

Post by seattle_spring » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:50 AM 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 ars » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 1:57 AM UTC

chillwaves wrote: post #291

ars wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ground pressure of a human wearing studded shoes is an order of magnitude or more higher than the ground pressure of a car. The ground pressure of a car is exactly equal to the PSI that you inflate the tire. Take the weight of a human and divide by the surface area of of a started shoe you will find a significantly higher number.

I can understand the car part (pounds per square inch) but why would a person's feet have more than 35 psi? If I have something like 60 (30 per) square inches of feet, and I weigh 180lbs, would that be 3 psi for my feet? Even if only parts of my feet were striking the ground at a time, how would that be more than a car?

Post by reitzensteinm » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:07 AM UTC

a3n wrote: post #275

masklinn wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Truck driver. Not quibbling, just adding nuance. You're absolutely quibbling though. > So you should include in your calculations that the load is spread out over eighteen tires, as above. The fourth power rule is specifically about axle load, not about wheel load. It's also an estimate / rule of thumb (which is why it's so useful), not a precision instrument. But hey if you want more precision than the FPR we can…

> The fourth power rule is specifically about axle load, not about wheel load. Misunderstood that, sorry.

Post by bigiain » Mon, Mar 09, 2020, 2:27 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #297

bigiain wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They're torn up from the road and rubbed off from the tyres themselves. The majority is obviously coming from the road. Not sure even that adds up to believable. The Sydney Harbour Bridge is about 500m long between the pylons. It has "more than 150,000 cars per day" on it (according to the snippet from a google search). If all of that was from the road, that'd mean there's about 160 tons of road getting torn up per…

Perhaps it’s mostly existing particles laying on the road that are thrown up by the next vehicle’s tyres as it passes?