Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

phys.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 172 posts

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#71

Post by Spooky23 »

crazygringo wrote: post #61
lm28469 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but then how many people are penalised by having to own a car?

A lot of people simply can't work from home due to lack of space, noise and interruptions, etc. It's a lot easier to buy a cheap used car than uproot your entire living situation to a new home where you can WFH, which you also might not be able to afford. Not to mention you probably already own your car for other things like getting groceries.

There are lots of ways to adapt to that. For example, you can have localized telework centers or subsidize co-working spaces.

The current situation is far worse. People are literally trapped in a cycle of poverty or bad work experience because they cannot get to a suburban office park for want of a car.

WFH has lots of limitations. Distribute work geographically and you can lower costs and improve outcomes. Why have accounts payable reps in New Jersey in a giant office when I could rent a small office in Maine or Kentucky for 80% less and pay the workers 30% less, without the complexities of offshoring.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#72

Post by trgn »

My neighbor on one side maintains their virginal lawn with copious amounts of roundup, the neighbor on the other has a facsimile in astroturf.

We will wallow, willingly, in trash, breathing fumes, particle dust, just because of an imitative, aesthetic fad. It's absolutely incredible to me.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#73

Post by ramblenode »

njarboe wrote: post #42
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom in what they do and who they spend time with. Having lots of shops and workplaces near your home is great and should be encouraged, but we should try and find ways to keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has. Lots and lots of tunnels, better tires, electric cars use brakes much less and could get to almost zero, etc.

That's basically how driving was sold to the American public in the 1950s. The reality is that transportation is a network, and driving is only efficient for the individual driver at a relatively low level of density. The bigger the population and the more people who drive, the less efficient the network. If you try to keep the network efficient, then driving acts as a constraint on the rest of societal development and you end up with sprawl and long transit times. Driving doesn't scale beyond a certain point (as you know, by suggesting expensive tunnels).

As for the freedom aspect, to get anywhere in an American suburb-styled society you are required to own and maintain a car, a major personal expense. When you travel somewhere, you have to find a place to safely park your car, and your person is tethered to where you park your car, usually needing to return there in a reasonable amount of time the same day, or else paying for long-term parking. You have to have a license from the government to use the only practical source of transportation, and if you don't have that license, you are effectively shut off from any autonomy. Cars certainly do increase the freedom to move and experience the world in some ways, but that is at the cost of other freedoms.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#74

Post by ben-schaaf »

Spivak wrote: post #60
mitchbob wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> freedom Including the freedom to spend the equivalent of weeks every year stuck in traffic: https://thecitypaperbogota.com/bogota/bogota-tops-tomtoms-gl...

Travel time is travel time, you would have a similar tally on the train/bus/walking. This isn't really the best argument against cars because people buy cars because it's a massive improvement on "waiting for the bus time."

Time on the bike or walking is time spent improving health and well being. Time on the train can be productive, relaxing or entertaining. There is an enormous difference between these and the stress of driving.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#75

Post by LeifCarrotson »

tristor wrote: post #9
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Same here, been WFH since 2015, however I did do a lot of driving for other reasons previously. Since 2022 however I drive less than 7000 miles a year, and that includes a family road trip each year for the holidays that is ~2500 miles round-trip. One thing that bothers me is that insurance is getting extremely expensive where I live, even though I hardly drive and my car is garaged year-round due to the greatly incr…

I can call my insurance agent and take a vehicle (seldom-used winter beater truck in the summer, or seldom-used summer car in the winter) on or off the road at a whim, prorating my premium appropriately.

That sucks for usability, but I wonder if there exists a market for 'smart insurance' where I can log into a webpage or use an app to put it on or off a car.

But the real answer, I think, is getting a quote for your actual mileage. You're driving 7000 miles a year and being lumped into a risk group with people who are driving two or three times as much:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

Unfortunately, I've found that mileage doesn't have a big impact on my premiums.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#76

Post by r00fus »

Neil44 wrote: post #21
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

As long as aggressively promoting WFH doesn't penalise people for whom this is not an option.

I'd say the same for the reverse. Except that has been the history of office work for generations except we have the technology and economy where that isn't required.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#77

Post by renewiltord »

LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

That's 3000 miles too many. Consider cutting that down to zero. I suggest an e-bike, a normal bike, or just walking. Think about how many tire particles you put into the environment, especially if you didn't just stick to controlled city environments and went to the woods. Our plant and animal life will thank you.

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#78

Post by dleeftink »

crazygringo wrote: post #61
lm28469 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK but then how many people are penalised by having to own a car?

A lot of people simply can't work from home due to lack of space, noise and interruptions, etc. It's a lot easier to buy a cheap used car than uproot your entire living situation to a new home where you can WFH, which you also might not be able to afford. Not to mention you probably already own your car for other things like getting groceries.

How about a place closer to home than a daily two hour commute? WFH and remotely logging hours doesn't mean working from your home in the strict sense, just a place that works for you with a shorter commute (whether that's your attic, local library or other type of workspace).

I also wonder whether owning a car just 'for groceries' is that commonplace?

Re: Tire toxicity faces fresh scrutiny after salmon die-offs

#79

Post by persnickety »

njarboe wrote: post #42
LarryDarrell wrote: post #6

Perhaps tires can be made less toxic, but over all, we need to prioritize driving less. WFH means I put barely 3000 miles per year on my car. It's absurd we are not aggressively promoting WFH or hybrid WFH at the national level. It's the easiest win for the environment and it's right there for the taking.

Driving is an amazing. It allows everyone huge amounts of freedom in what they do and who they spend time with. Having lots of shops and workplaces near your home is great and should be encouraged, but we should try and find ways to keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has. Lots and lots of tunnels, better tires, electric cars use brakes much less and could get to almost zero, etc.

> keep the freedom of personal transportation and reduce the impact it has

We've had the answer for longer than we've had cars. Put on the helmet and pedal away!

Post reply on HN