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

Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 595 posts

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#291

Post by FredPret »

epolanski wrote: post #247
FredPret wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know the dust was specifically brake dust?

Good point. I'm quite sure it was brake dust because during COVID 19 lockdowns everything was the same (heating etc) but streets were void of cars. Then I've read some scientific article about brake with pics and it looked exactly as what I got inside my house. I can't conclude 100% it was it (or just it), but it seems to be the most probable cause along tires.

Ah, that's interesting. Although I imagine cars kick up a lot of old-fashioned dirt dust from the road and swoosh up some more of that from the sidewalks as they drive as well.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#292

Post by merman »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
domoritz wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are heavier. Not saying it offsets the effect but it's just not straight forward to assume either way.

They're not inherently heavier. They're only heavier if you put a long-range battery in them, even then it's not by very much, and even that may not persist as higher energy density batteries are developed. Or to put it another way, the difference between a small car and a large SUV is far greater than the difference between an electric car and a gasoline car.

Size for size they’re heavier. Maybe someday not but they are.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#293

Post by FredPret »

MilaM wrote: post #240
FredPret wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know the dust was specifically brake dust?

I live in a house next to a moderately busy street with car traffic and also some public transport (bus lines). I noticed that the windows (and frames) facing the street get dirty much faster than the windows facing the garden. The dirt on the street side is also pretty gross, sticky and hard to clean. It's just an anecdotal observation, but I could not come up with a better explanation so far.

I had a balcony overlooking a highway in Toronto once, and it got super grimy as well. I think all the different kinds of car emissions combine into some sort of super bad tarry crap that then collects every kind of passing dust particle.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#294

Post by [deleted] »

MilaM wrote: post #240
FredPret wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know the dust was specifically brake dust?

I live in a house next to a moderately busy street with car traffic and also some public transport (bus lines). I noticed that the windows (and frames) facing the street get dirty much faster than the windows facing the garden. The dirt on the street side is also pretty gross, sticky and hard to clean. It's just an anecdotal observation, but I could not come up with a better explanation so far.

[deleted]

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#295

Post by flomo »

Vinnl wrote: post #272
flomo wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the USA, the working poor generally don't work downtown, and it's really the industrial areas where there is awful transit service. So cheapo used cars are a must for these folks. There is some awful HN bias here where young healthy well-paid tech workers live in some boogie part of SF/NYC/Boston/etc and enjoy the "car-free lifestyle" (and I've been there), without any idea how the other half lives.

Wasn't GP specifically complaining about the other half not being able to enjoy the "car-free lifestyle"? (/not be forced to use the car to live their life.)

I'm not unsympathetic, but I don't think a "European who studied at OSU for a semester" really knows what they are talking about.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#296

Post by robocat »

ahaucnx wrote: post #83
10-1-100 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also worth noting that with modern emissions standards (and transition to EVs), over 50% of handful particulates come from tires, brakes, road surface wear, and resuspended dust: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/non-exhaust-particulate... I don't think there's any healthy level of private cars coexisting with humans in a city, without even considering the more immediate harms from crashes, etc.

It seems that there has been fundamental mistakes and overstatements in the amount of particles from brakes in much of the secondary research in the last decades. Details: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792

Greens seem to deceive in the same way as green-washing except with greener deceptions (whereas green-washing is capitalists pretending to be green).

Example: a report on the cost-benefit of using bicycles, that comes out with a fantastic positive number for introducing a cycle lane. Except the number depends on a monetary estimate of the benefits to society for health improvements. I'm sure the health improvements exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that the health benefits to society were well estimated. The problem is that by cherry-picking benefits you can simply ignore all monetary benefits of cars (no benefits for cars were mentioned as I recall).

I've seen it in other articles which talk sacharrinely about the benefit of some green tech. But ignoring real costs and certainly not being balanced. The ultra-idealistic greenies are not helping their cause when rubbish is repeated.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#297

Post by numitus »

com wrote: post #205
Saline9515 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dutch people using bikes for everything is a meme, they have as many cars per inhabitants as most of the developed nations. Anecdotically, they are a small, dense, flat country, with an oceanic weather. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_territ...

But those cars, as has been explained to you, don’t do nearly as many trips per year. Mobility in families is actually higher, since each individual has sturdy legs, and highly likely, a bike after they’re about 5 years old. Kids often travel to school, after school events etc on foot, bike or public transport, not dependent as in many car-centric places on parents and their cars. Grandma is as likely to bike over fo…

85% of travels in Netherlands happens using car https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/TRAN_HV_MS_PS...

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#298

Post by const_cast »

bslalwn wrote: post #264
const_cast wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which wasn't a problem when everybody could afford to drive before Europe ruined everything. It was still a problem, because a lot of those people died or had reduced quality of life. The reality is driving is very dangerous. In the US, it's the primary cause of death for many age groups. And the pollution kills. And it kills pedestrians. And car-dependence is a lot like heroin. You depend on cars, so you build thi…

There isn’t a single sentence in your comment that isn’t hyperbolic.

It's only hyperbole because you have a car-centric point of view. From an objective point of view, there are A LOT of problems with cars.

It's not hyperbolic to say that cars kill people on the scale of tobacco and alcohol. It's literally true. Again, the primary cause of death for a lot of demographics in the US is driving. You would, literally, have a lower mortality if you walked to work and smoked a Capri methanol on the way.

We just don't view driving in this way because, unlike tobacco, it is a necessary evil. As soon as you dismantle the assumption that it's necessary the rest falls into place.

There is a direct link between car-centric infrastructure and most things that are killing you and making your life worse. The fact you choose to ignore it does not mean it doesn't exist. And, to be fair, ignoring it is good practice. If I had to come to terms with my own mortality before every commute I'd probably kill myself. Ignorance is bliss.

If you simply look at the places world-wide associated with higher quality of life you'll notice a common denominator. More greenery, more walking, fresher food, more public transit, and less cars. It's not a coincidence, it's pretty obvious when you sit down and put the pieces together.

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#299

Post by flomo »

jmward01 wrote: post #286
flomo wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The citation is every American transit system in the 1950s. Even SF only kept the streetcars where they couldn't replace with a bus line. I think you're making a different argument, where trains attract a more well-heeled commuter. Which is why many cities have brought back LRT as part of a redevelopment plan.

The argument I am making is that you can only say something was cheaper if it provided the same level of service or better for less money. In the case of the bus transition it provided worse service as indicated by utilization dropping. I am also making the argument that evaluating the value of transit shouldn't rest entirely on the cost of that service and ridership but on the value as a whole it brings to a city. I…

Yes, I like trains and wish we had better transit. I'm responding to the claim streetcars were "torn up for cars", which was not really the case (and frequently subject to a conspiracy theory).

Re: Air pollution fell substantially as Paris restricted car traffic

#300

Post by cure »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #223
NightMKoder wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know about tires, but for brakes we already know how to make lower dust brakes - use drum brakes instead of disc brakes. The friction material is enclosed on drum brakes so much less of it just flies away.

There's also EVs that generally do most of their braking on the regenerative whatsit, which causes no wear on the brake pads. A lot of it can be prevented by education / driving style, and improving road designs to allow for smooth driving.

Pretty much every EV does regenerative baking, because it (greatly) extends range. Even hybrids have done this since the very earliest mass-market models (the 1997 Prius has it). EV brakes see a lot less wear and tear than ICE brakes.
Post reply on HN