A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
But electric cars will fix everything. Thats what electric car manufacturers said!
The only thing I see amerikans taking 'urgent action' on is making sure a few select convicted criminals avoid doing any prison time.
Also, we're due for a new high school shooting record. Maybe we can break it this next time.
Not surprised but happy that someone identified this source
Action won't happen. In fact, we'll increase the amount of pollution!
This is the way
If only there was a highly efficient mode of transporting people that didn’t use tires. Ah well, nothing can be done I guess.
My city's metro system uses rubber tyres, :(
I imagine it's still orders of magnitudes better than everyone driving their own car in.
Same with busses. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the good
Yes, imagine if there was a fast and safe way of transport. Something like made to run on steel bars in order to reduce friction. I don't know. I'm just imagining, I watch too much science fiction.
To be fair, the most efficient mode of transportation is cycling by far. I wonder if bike tires also contribute to this.
They do
I'm sure they do but it will be way less.
The wear rate should be proportional to the weight of the system (car plus cargo and passsengers, bike plus cargo and riders), maybe with some correction factors for things that affect wear rate like knobbiness.
Since bikes weigh a couple orders of magnitude less on average, the amount of tire wear material should also be a couple orders of magnitude less.
Edit: other lemmyer said wear is proportional to weight to the 4th power and that may be correct. I vaguely recall that from school now that they mentioned it.
should be proportional to the weight of the system
It's that really true? Wear to the roads is proportional to the fourth power of axle weight so I would never have predicted a linear relationship.
Doesn't speed/acceleration affect it? If that is the case, that's another pro for bikes.
Assuming the material properties and physical design of the two tire types is identical, maybe
Bikes cause thousands of times less damage to streets so I wouldn’t be surprised if they also wear less.
And the size of bike tires is way less than a car tire.
Good point! Also much less weight.
While there's no doubt tires are bad for the environment, a quarter of all microplastics seems a lot, especially since plastic is everywhere. Gladly there's a source for that claim, a link to tireindustryproject's FAQ... Claiming that this number is a gross overestimation. What the fuck is this article? Is it supposed to be satire or something?
Bear in mind that the denominator is plastic pollution. Most plastic waste does not directly pollute the environment. If it is not recycled then it goes to landfills or incineration. Not ideal, but at least the damage is contained. (The bulk of ocean plastic comes from the rivers of poor countries without proper waste management.)
The issue with tyre microplastics is that it's all but impossible to channel the waste. It's the same with synthetic fabric: just washing it creates pollution that's really hard to control.
(The bulk of ocean plastic comes from the rivers of poor countries without proper waste management.)
This might be true for places nearer to shore, but studies have found the great Pacific patch to be mostly discarded fishing gear by weight.
So then isn't it 1/4 of a meaningless number? It seems like the specific impacts mentioned in the article (zinc,6PPD) are more relevant.
I've seen a similar number in a lot of proper scientific sources, so this article may be bunk, but the number is correct I think.
For example this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.171003 They claim 27,26% in China.
And this article: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2024-0106.pdf They claim 24.88% in the EU and state it's among the biggest if not the biggest contributor to microplastics.
I'm all for debunking stuff, but about a quarter seems to be the currently accepted quantity to the best of our abilities to measure.
There is a bit of confusion between the amount tyres contribute into the ocean, how much into the ocean and waterways and how much in the environment as a whole. A lot of it ends up in the soil, so it doesn't contribute to plastics in the water, but still in the environment.
That was an interesting read. I guess tyre fragments (and industrial pellets) are just way bigger than the other big offenders, which would explain why they represent such a huge portion of the total mass, and why they are filtered out "easily". Overall it seems to me that we really need to categorize the different microplastics better, as the current definition (anything plastic 5mm and under) seems a bit too large, and with all the mix ups, you can always blame something else.
This is also yet another reason SUVs are bad: bigger tyres, higher weight, more wear, more pollution.
It's also another reason to have lower speed limits: less friction, less wear, less pollution.
I learned recently that speed limits are determined by studying the speeds driven and setting them at the 85th percentile.
So what we can do to lower speed limits is to find a place they're doing a traffic study and repeatedly drive over them at very low speeds.
You want trains because they are good for the environment.
I want trains because chugga chugga choo choo.
We are not the same.
Why not both?
Geez, here is another issue for which we've known about for 40 or so years that requires "urgent Action" for the past 40 years already
Wake me up when we finally do something
Boomers have categorically chosen apathy in favor of their own self interests since 1970. By the late 90s, they were a wrecking ball.
The other big offender are synthetic textiles btw.
And on the other hand, growing cotton uses a lot of water. And wool comes from animals.
What actually is the greenest material to make garments of?
Cotton and wool can at least be returned to the earth naturally. Cotton can be grown places where water shortages aren't an issue.
Personally the greenest option for me is trying to buy clothing made from nature textiles at a second hand store. I also wear what I own until it is basically rags, if a garmet gets a hole or a stain it becomes work clothing for when I'm doing dirty work. Obviously everyone on the planet cannot do that, but as it stands we already waste tons of clothing with fast fashion and many garmets are only worn a handful of times before being thrown away or even never worn or sold at all before becoming trash.
I think hemp would be the best material for clothes, but in most places it's still an illegal plant.
If only there was an alternative.
What if we replace vulcanized rubber with a metal ring 🤔
Maybe it could also run on some kind of metal street, to further reduce friction? 🤔
we could probably manage traffic much easier if switching was controlled vs. random drivers...
While we're at it, maybe we could install some powerlines to provide the vehicles with electricity. That way they could run on renewable energy.