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

81–90 of 172 posts

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

#81

Post by thefaux »

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."

I don't really understand this statement. Do you genuinely think that there is no difference in QOL between a 30 minute drive on a packed freeway vs a 40 minute walk on pleasant streets? Personally, I'd leave 10 minutes earlier and choose the latter every time. Even better, walking time is remarkably consistent. On foot, I essentially never have to worry about my travel being disrupted by road conditions which means I know when I arrive based on when I leave which is not the case at all with driving which has a much higher variance.

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

#83

Post by dragontamer »

liminal wrote: post #36

I'd like to see a weight tax on vehicles. Lighter vehicles have less tire wear, so less pollution. They also require less energy to move, so less emissions. Plus lighter vehicles would improve pedestrian safety.

My local state is adding weight to our vehicle registration fees, but only slightly (ex: capping out at 5000lbs). There are vehicles as high as 8000+lbs commonly used, and I think those should have higher tax than the 5000lb class vehicles.

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

#84

Post by gregwebs »

Putting EV subsidies instead into electrifying and enhancing train transit seems like a better approach to combat this. A lot of mass transit trains are still diesel powered and pollute heavily (although on a per person basis might be much better than driving cars).

I am wondering if a bus is better or worse for tire pollution per capita?

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

#85

Post by barrkel »

tommiegannert wrote: post #57
liminal wrote: post #36

I'd like to see a weight tax on vehicles. Lighter vehicles have less tire wear, so less pollution. They also require less energy to move, so less emissions. Plus lighter vehicles would improve pedestrian safety.

My canton in Switzerland uses this formula: tax = k * P*0.9 / m*0.05 P: power in kW m: weight in kg k: currently 7.125 Minimizing tax means a small engine and a heavy car. (Though the tax difference between 1000 kg and 3000 kg is only 6%.) They also don't do subsidies for EVs, with the rationale that EVs affect road maintenance as much as other cars. Given that, the formula is backwards in terms of weight. https://gu…

It's penalizing high power to weight ratio, i.e. sports vehicles.

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

#87

Post by hinkley »

thfuran wrote: post #12
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.

Is it actually a win for the environment? Sure, not commuting is, but what about more people deciding to live in less dense areas?

My theory is that WFH will mostly contribute to creating secondary markets for more industries. Professionals will still want the services a city affords you but not want to pay SF or even Seattle prices. So they’ll end up somewhere under two hours from the nearest metropolis.

But if you get enough people in one place, you’ll get entrepreneurship.

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

#88

Post by _yb2s »

renewiltord wrote: post #77
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.

Consider all of the shoe tread debris you create by walking or riding bicycles. Consider only walking barefoot, or just stay in one place and stop moving your body around. Judgemental strangers on the internet will thank you.

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

#89

Post by _yb2s »

liminal wrote: post #36

I'd like to see a weight tax on vehicles. Lighter vehicles have less tire wear, so less pollution. They also require less energy to move, so less emissions. Plus lighter vehicles would improve pedestrian safety.

This would be a good idea, because weight is the major factor in vehicle safety... if everyone else has a 6,000lb vehicle, you need one as well to be safe when they hit you. If vehicles on average got lighter, this would solve this problem. Unfortunately, EVs and modern crash tech have made cars much heavier. A 1970 small economy car like a VW Rabbit was ~1800lbs, that same car now (VW Golf) is now ~3200lbs.

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

#90

Post by jwagenet »

Spivak wrote: post #70
david-gpu wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Presuming everyone does want to live in a dense area (I do not) I wish we stopped subsidizing wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas. It is intrinsically regressive that poorer people living in sustainable denser areas are subsidizing the infrastructure of the low density suburbs where richer people live. Low density suburbs do not raise enough taxes to support their own infrastructure, from roads, to…

> wealthy folks choosing to live in low density areas There's no way you're saying this with a straight face, right? People move out of the city because it's significantly cheaper. Rent in a nice two bedroom "downtown" is $3500. You move 15 minutes out of there and you can get 3 bedroom house for an $1800 mortgage that'll never go up. Source: I did that. I got tired of paying such a huge chunk of my income for living…

It’s cheaper because not enough city housing is built and there are other costs associated with suburban living. IMO, property taxes should increase as density decreases because those less dense areas will cost a lot more to maintain roads, utilities, etc. down the road.
Post reply on HN