645
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] riodoro1@lemmy.world 16 points 7 hours ago

But electric cars will fix everything. Thats what electric car manufacturers said!

[-] KneeTitts@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago

The only thing I see amerikans taking 'urgent action' on is making sure a few select convicted criminals avoid doing any prison time.

[-] Lennny@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Also, we're due for a new high school shooting record. Maybe we can break it this next time.

[-] clutchtwopointzero@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

Not surprised but happy that someone identified this source

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 23 minutes ago

Unfortunately this is known since two decades or so. I have learned about it in Uni 5 years ago.

I expect that car and tire manufacturers have been lobbying against this getting more attention extensively. There is no other solution except reducing car traffic.

[-] AliasAKA@lemmy.world 67 points 21 hours ago

If only there was a highly efficient mode of transporting people that didn’t use tires. Ah well, nothing can be done I guess.

[-] 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works 11 points 14 hours ago

My city's metro system uses rubber tyres, :(

[-] PrettyFlyForAFatGuy@feddit.uk 7 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

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

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 21 points 19 hours ago

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.

[-] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 11 points 19 hours ago

To be fair, the most efficient mode of transportation is cycling by far. I wonder if bike tires also contribute to this.

[-] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 7 points 12 hours ago
[-] Churbleyimyam@lemm.ee 27 points 19 hours ago

I'm sure they do but it will be way less.

[-] Pulptastic@midwest.social 14 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

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.

[-] sping@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 4 hours ago

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.

[-] aim_at_me@lemmy.nz 1 points 1 hour ago

Exponential relationships are still proportional.

[-] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

Doesn't speed/acceleration affect it? If that is the case, that's another pro for bikes.

[-] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 2 points 12 hours ago

Assuming the material properties and physical design of the two tire types is identical, maybe

[-] Tire@lemmy.ml 20 points 19 hours ago

Bikes cause thousands of times less damage to streets so I wouldn’t be surprised if they also wear less.

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 8 points 19 hours ago

And the size of bike tires is way less than a car tire.

[-] Echolynx@lemmy.zip 9 points 19 hours ago

Good point! Also much less weight.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Poem_for_your_sprog@lemmy.world 35 points 19 hours ago

Action won't happen. In fact, we'll increase the amount of pollution!

[-] raldone01@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

The factory must grow.

Ahhh ups this is reality. Better don't over do it.

[-] Agent641@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

This is the way

[-] Maetani@jlai.lu 59 points 1 day ago

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?

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 25 points 21 hours ago

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.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

(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.

[-] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 49 minutes ago

Yes I've seen this factoid too, but I struggle to see how it could be true. We're comparing theoretically non-disposable kit from individual boats with the output of a large number of massive rivers in countries with populations of hundreds of millions (in particular Indonesia and Philippines) and a terrible habit of dumping trash in waterways. The amount reaching the ocean must by definition be huge.

Of course, the main problem with discarded fishing nets is not that they are plastic but that they destroy the ecosystem by design. Maybe the two harms have been conflated.

[-] frayedpickles@lemmy.cafe 3 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

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.

[-] Thorry84@feddit.nl 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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.

[-] Maetani@jlai.lu 4 points 12 hours ago

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.

[-] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 52 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] Semi_Hemi_Demigod@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 day ago

You want trains because they are good for the environment.

I want trains because chugga chugga choo choo.

We are not the same.

[-] Emerald@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

Why not both?

[-] lnxtx@feddit.nl 139 points 1 day ago

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? 🤔

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 91 points 1 day ago

we could probably manage traffic much easier if switching was controlled vs. random drivers...

[-] ValiantDust@feddit.org 68 points 1 day ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 51 points 1 day ago

The other big offender are synthetic textiles btw.

[-] vaionko@sopuli.xyz 8 points 20 hours ago

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?

[-] Saleh@feddit.org 1 points 17 minutes ago

Someone already suggested hemp, but there is also other fibres like linen.

At the end of the day clothing would not be an issue at all, if clothes were made to last and worn accordingly. Unless you work in blue collar jobs, the wear on clothes is minimal and there is no reason why a set of shirts shouldn't last you a decade.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

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.

[-] Scrollone@feddit.it 8 points 19 hours ago

I think hemp would be the best material for clothes, but in most places it's still an illegal plant.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 39 points 1 day ago

What if we wrapped the tyres in bags to contain all the dust?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] SkunkWorkz@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

That’s on top of all the brake dust cars spread.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
645 points (100.0% liked)

Fuck Cars

9692 readers
1166 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon'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 topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo 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.

Posting Guidelines

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:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS