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

151–160 of 172 posts

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

#151

Post by uoaei »

dragontamer wrote: post #132
chongli wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.

I love pushing "Tire Taxes". We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire). So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to e…

So you want to tax tires separately to whole cars? You don't think your scheme will induce perverse incentives as regards tread patterns, grip in different weather scenarios, etc.?

If I were a tire manufacturer I'd love this because I would:

* make tires that have not very much tread to wear through

* make the outer tread extremely hard so it wears (testably) much more slowly

* blame consumers for driving the tires wrong rather than make safe tires because we can hide behind T&Cs and our army of lawyers when accident rates inevitably increase

* put our fingers in all the tire installation and body shop pies to prpfit off of the new economic conditions that were created as a result of this tax

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

#152

Post by chongli »

eldaisfish wrote: post #128
chongli wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and so what makes the most sense is to make the tax increase with the 4th power of vehicle weight multiplied by the miles they travel. This way there are no perverse incentives. Everyone pays their fair share according to how much damage they cause.

Tying a tax to distance travelled requires accurate reporting of distance travelled. How is that not a perverse incentive?

We shouldn't care if you want to buy a 10,000 lb electric truck if you leave it parked in your driveway all year round. If we're not taxing based on distance then the perverse incentive is to drive big trucks until they fall to pieces.

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

#153

Post by dragontamer »

uoaei wrote: post #151
dragontamer wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love pushing "Tire Taxes". We all know that tires will emit rubber particles down to the point where the tire tred is 2/32th of an inch (from ~8/32ths of a fresh tire). So just... tax the tires based on the ~6/32ths of an inch outer-diameter of the tire that turns into microplastic dust. Calculate the microplastic dust weight of the outer diameter + weight of tires and bam. You have a 1-to-1 correlation of tax to e…

So you want to tax tires separately to whole cars? You don't think your scheme will induce perverse incentives as regards tread patterns, grip in different weather scenarios, etc.? If I were a tire manufacturer I'd love this because I would: * make tires that have not very much tread to wear through * make the outer tread extremely hard so it wears (testably) much more slowly * blame consumers for driving the tires w…

My State isn't very big.

If everyone started making tire taxes across the country, maybe that'd be a problem. But no one gives a care about just one small state making a tax like this.

Michelin isn't going to redesign their tires just to save $50 in tire taxes.

> * make tires that have not very much tread to wear through

That's not how physics works. You need deep tread to safely expel water and/or deep treads to make snow-impressions (if its a snow tire).

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

#154

Post by cbsmith »

lonelyasacloud wrote: post #131
cbsmith wrote: post #62

I'm kind of stunned that we're just now getting a handle on problems with tire particulates. It's been roughly a century.

I'm not. Default assumption in the West is if it's not medicine and it doesn't kill immediately it's good to go. Some time later, usually quite a lot, a tiny group of independent scientists end up being interested enough to scientifically prove that bloody obvious scaling problem is a problem. But by that time usually much money and politics is tied up in it. To that mix, then add in legislatures that even when they…

There's been a ton of analysis on the safety of automobiles in the US. Does it really make sense that we got to leaded gasoline being a problem decades before tire particles?

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

#155

Post by positr0n »

dragontamer wrote: post #147
NewJazz wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't account for road wear or pedestrian risk, though.

I have to imagine that if Car X wore out 5kg of rubber, that it would have had half the impact of another Car Y that wore out 10kg of rubber. Right? Tire wear has to be directly correlated to road wear. They're in physical contact with each other after all, so it'd be as direct a measurement as any other possible methodology.

But rubber does not damage concrete, it's the weight of the vehicle that damages the concrete.

As an extreme example, if I floor a 2000lb Miata when the light turns green that will deposit a ton of rubber on the road. But that does nothing compared to just driving through the intersection in a 6000lb suburban.

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

#156

Post by positr0n »

dragontamer wrote: post #153
uoaei wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you want to tax tires separately to whole cars? You don't think your scheme will induce perverse incentives as regards tread patterns, grip in different weather scenarios, etc.? If I were a tire manufacturer I'd love this because I would: * make tires that have not very much tread to wear through * make the outer tread extremely hard so it wears (testably) much more slowly * blame consumers for driving the tires w…

My State isn't very big. If everyone started making tire taxes across the country, maybe that'd be a problem. But no one gives a care about just one small state making a tax like this. Michelin isn't going to redesign their tires just to save $50 in tire taxes. > * make tires that have not very much tread to wear through That's not how physics works. You need deep tread to safely expel water and/or deep treads to mak…

> That's not how physics works. You need deep tread to safely expel water and/or deep treads to make snow-impressions

Key word here is safely. A large portion of people would care more about saving $100 in tax than about the physics that makes their car less safe.

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

#157

Post by bamboozled »

basil-rash wrote: post #46
bamboozled wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d almost guarantee the bristles on a street sweeper are also leaching insane amounts of toxic crap into the environment. I bet they’re plastic…

They’re metal. Plastic would not stand up to the task.

Actually some good news then :)

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

#158

Post by Spooky23 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #102
Spooky23 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> subsidize co-working spaces These are called offices. Look, I WFH and I love it. But in the process I probably quintupled my emissions. I might be able to get that down to quadrupling with an EV and full solar array. But the realities of suburban/rural living are simply much harsher on the environment.

The stated problem is some people can’t effectively work from home.

My goal is to get the best candidates. My reasons are selfish - I can get great people cheap if they have circumstances problematic for other employers.

So I got a 5 desks in a small town in the middle of nowhere, and about 15 people in that region utilize it.

Everyone wins: i spend almost nothing. The employee has a great job, doesn’t have to drive 90 minutes, and doesn’t have to disrupt the family life.

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

#159

Post by chongli »

positr0n wrote: post #155
dragontamer wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to imagine that if Car X wore out 5kg of rubber, that it would have had half the impact of another Car Y that wore out 10kg of rubber. Right? Tire wear has to be directly correlated to road wear. They're in physical contact with each other after all, so it'd be as direct a measurement as any other possible methodology.

But rubber does not damage concrete, it's the weight of the vehicle that damages the concrete. As an extreme example, if I floor a 2000lb Miata when the light turns green that will deposit a ton of rubber on the road. But that does nothing compared to just driving through the intersection in a 6000lb suburban.

Yeah. It's the vehicle weight combined with temperature fluctuations and water, ice, and salt. The worst case scenario is when the road develops tiny cracks that fill up with water and then the temperature drops, causing the water to freeze and expand inside those cracks. The cracks grow larger and then when the water thaws and evaporates it leaves behind those large cracks/voids which heavy vehicles collapse due to their weight, turning cracks into potholes.
Post reply on HN