“Small price to pay for the freedom to travel”
-An actual thing that’s been said to me before when I brought up other environmental issues
Nothing says “freedom” like a tool that costs tens of thousands to buy and thousands every year to maintain and use.
Meanwhile I can amtrak to DC for $30 round trip 🤷
From where?
This statement doesn’t make much sense without context.
deleted by creator
It varies a huge amount. You can get DC to NYC tickets for under $50 if you buy at the last second. Most trains don’t fill up and they basically give away the remaining seats with like 8 hours to go.
deleted by creator
I’ll have to remember this 🤔
58cent is IRS estimate which is under estimating the cost inherently due to state bias.
Also, not even accounting for crazy car prices recently
And parking and sitting in traffic
deleted by creator
What costs are you adding for a train…
Asking for a friend
Sure, but I’m not disclosing my location on Lemmy. 🤷
I’m sure a bit of diddling on their site could give you an idea of how far $X will get you.
Our freedom to travel was stolen from us and sold back to us
“Small price to pay for the freedom to travel”
Well, they pay a small price for their freedom to travel. It’s everybody else that has to suffer the externalities of their choices.
Let’s tax antisocial behavior, so that these externalities are internalized. Carbon tax, vehicle weight per passenger tax, vehicle volume per passenger tax, etc.
‘Be careful now, you’re starting to sound like a communist.’ they say.
Seriously though, you’re right, we should do all that. Switching over to EVs won’t solve very many problems. Everywhere needs to have fewer vehicles in the road and that’s public transit.
Fuck them.
They also call me a communist now because I think a 40 hour work week should put a basic roof (efficiency on your own or maybe a basic 2br with a roomie) over your head no matter what you’re doing.
Turns out the “Red Scare™” will always return whenever capitalism starts fraying at the seams to keep people from exploring even the slightest reforms.
It’s not even a freedom to travel… It’s a requirement. You want to live in area where you don’t need need a car? Only a few cities in America make that reality possible. If you want/have to live/work anywhere else… You need a car. That’s not freedom. Also those places where you don’t need a car are very expensive to live in.
Its not a lack of rails and light rails… It’s a lack of local transportation that’s fast and reliable.
People actually use the bus system in Ann Arbor because it runs on time, frequently and is clean. I’m all for a transportation haven but a lot of cities can’t even walk and are trying to run.
Detroits Q Line is a good example of running before you can walk. The bus system is god awful. Late. No shows. Generally unreliable. Then they just slapped a thing on top of it that’s probably even less reliable…
Can we just get some real public transportation options in the USA? I’ve visited Washington D.C., Boston, and New York City recently, and I’m in love with the subway (etc). Where I live would still require a car, but afaik, none of the major cities around me have anything more than a lackluster bus system.
Best we can do is another lane on the highway. That should fix the problem!
Ok, hear me out: What if we were to dig a system of narrow tunnels under the city, and then let people drive through them. Of course, cars would need to be on some form of automated tracks to make it safe. Then you could link up multiple cars and make long lines of cars following the tracks to the same destination.
It’s a brand new concept, I know, but modern problems require modern solutions. Maybe we can sell hats and flamethrowers to generate support.
(/s in case it wasn’t obvious)
This is a great idea! It might work if you give everyone fake steering wheels and pedals.
Trains.
Man, that would have been great 20 years ago.
If not now, when?
This is mostly just me being a doomer, paraphrasing from The Newsroom.
It wasn’t the plastic straws after all?
I’m shocked, shocked.Plastic straws are still very harmful for many sea animals and are apart from that entirely unnecessary (unlike tires).
As I read on masto, we should replace the tires with steel to stop the plastic pollution.
Of course to protect the road that would also have to be steel. And we’d need to link all the vehicles together to make best use of the limited steel road surface.
(It’s trains)
Steel dust quickly turns to iron oxide in the environment, which is a fairly common natural mineral (it’s the reason red clay is red). To be fair, there might still be some slight negative effects to ecosystems which do not naturally have a lot of iron oxide at the surface, but that wouldn’t even be a rounding error compared to the harmful environmental effects of tires and asphalt. Also, steel dust is very heavy so there’s essentially no chance of it getting into the air and inhaled.
Back in the 1900s we had cars like that they were electric, and didn’t run into traffic… I see the tracks for them every time the road is resurfaced.
I have 4 stainless steel straws never going back to that plastic bullshit
What are the odds that a PR group, well aware of the damage of tyres, spun the focus to target small consumable plastics?
Don’t look at cars, look at the image of turtles and straws, seagulls and can rings, and porpoises mistaking bags for jellyfish.
And here I was walking to work trying to suck some coffee through a damp piece of cardboard, while it turns out that the suburban Panzer IV commuters were to blame? What’s next?
Just another reason why private cars are a horrible idea
If only we could have a one company pick people up and deliver them to another point or work from home and have our stuff delivered.
The thing that picks people up could even have metal wheels as it follows a fixed route, and run on metal roads
Oh so you just wanna fill the oceans with micrometals!
Shellfish already beat us too it!!!
They’ve been enacting a conspiracy to release billions of tons of a metal so hazardous it explodes on contact with water into our oceans, and they’ve been at it for millions of years with nobody to stop them
Or work from home and walk to the grocery store that’s within walking distance.
Yes, all the manufacturing workers in the US should just… Work from home. And the restaurant, warehouse, service sector, and, like, everyone else. Just work from home! It’s magic!
Only a very tiny minority of people have the privilege to even be capable of working from home. The idea that everyone, or even a significant minority can, is absolutely ridiculous.
There are 4.4 million software engineers in North America. That’s excluding accountants, marketing people, designers, writers and possibly hundreds of jobs more. But oh no, let’s not get 4 million cars out of the road. Since everyone does not have the privilege to work from home, nothing else matters. This kind of bigoted thinking is why the world does not get better. And what you said word to word is how Elon Musk said when banning remote work, work that was done 100% remotely.
And there are 7 million software developers in China, 5 million in India, 1 million in Germany. All of them perfectly capable of working from home. But oh no, why bother taking millions of cars off the road per day, if it isn’t everyone in the world? Spoken like a true micromanager or an office building owner downtown.
Or work from home
That is what you said. The overwhelming majority of people do not have that capability. I’m not saying that no one should work from home, and that it’s not a great goal to have people that can doing so, but your phrasing implies that everyone has that capability.
People on this community really think its so simple to make everyone live walking distance to a train or bus and for everyone to work from home.
“Well, SOME people will need to have cars.” but also “death to cars”
I applaud the attempt, but you’re all insane.
Indeed. It’s just not possible.
I would love to have functional public transit across the US, but unless your goal is to entirely eliminate all rural life–which would include farms–you’re never going to be able to eliminate cars. I live near Atlanta; public transit there is abysmal. Building an elevated light rail system, and creating dedicated bus lanes throughout metro Atlanta would make the city much easier to navigate. But when I say near ATL, I mean that it takes about 90 minutes to get to the center with zero traffic. There’s simply not enough people to make buses viable in my town (there’s only one traffic light!), much less light rail.
It’s interesting to me that as soon as EV’s are finally seriously becoming a thing, we are told that tire dust, rather than ICE emissions, are really the worst thing possible for the planet (and it’s somehow implied that ICE vehicles don’t have tires). When somebody points out that ICE vehicles do, in fact, have tires too, EV’s are STILL worse because EV’s are heavier than the equivalent ICE cars. Strangely, the fact that for years, people have been driving ludicrously overweight vehicles (the Ford F150, weighing in at 4,070 to 5,757 lbs, is the top selling passenger vehicle in the US, and last I checked, it had tires) was never an issue.
It’s almost like people are incapable of comprehending that all types of pollution are important, not just one or the other. Exhaust emissions are bad. Tyre pollution is also bad. Reducing one is a good step. Reducing both would be even better.
Many things can be bad at once, and I’m sure tire particles really are bad. It is just weird that in the 137 years ICE cars have been manufactured (again, with tires the whole time), the fact that the tire particles were way worse than all the other things cars spew out went completely unnoticed.
I’m only being partially facetious. Yes I understand cars are now much cleaner than they used to be, so probably in the past tailpipe emissions were the dominant problem. But an awful lot of the articles talking about this are pushing the idea that EVs are WORSE for the environment than ICE cars (so let’s just keep driving our F150s!), which is absolutely untrue. Better is still better, even if it isn’t perfect.
This why so many have always said that EVs are not the solution for climate change, they are and always will be a solution for the auto industry.
And yet it’s the auto industry lobby who’s trotting this line out because they’re not really ready for EVs and this is a good delaying tactic for them.
It’s not, because the same people who said evs are not the solution also say that the solution is accessible public transportation and bikes.
The use of tires will be a daunting thing to change. If somehow we all managed to change to bicycles for instance, there are still tires.
The wear is drastically different, at least.
Probably easier to develop an alternative too when it doesn’t need to support two tons.
The amount of wear on the tires of a bicycle which let’s just assume the heaviest person riding the heaviest e-bike would be a few hundred pounds wearing on the tires? Compared to several tons for an auto pressing down on 4 tires it’s a LOT less.
If a solution reduces a problem by 99% I’d say that’s a damn good solution. Instead here we are, clapping and rejoicing when the car companies say the new model is 5% more fuel efficient or 3% lighter over the ongoing model.
The trend of most new vehicle sales are larger and heavier :(
Yup and, as the article states, electric cars are even worse.
As per the quote below, a car loses about 0.08g of tread per km.
Compared to a car, a bike tyre is about the same diameter, 10% of the width (~20mm), 28% usable tread depth (~2mm), has 50% less wheels, and can travel 10% the distance (~10000km).
This suggests a (very approximate) tread loss of 0.08 * 10% * 28% * 50% / 10% = ~ 0.01g per km for bicycles.
For replacing longer car journeys less typically travelled by bicycle, rail transport is the best solution and removes the issue of tyre wear.
Quoting [deleted] in r/theydidthemath:
Using the same assumptions as above (215/60R16 tires, 7mm of tread loss over 100,000 km), I estimate the loss of tread by volume from each tire as follows:
Cylinder with a diameter of 664 mm and a height of 215 mm has a volume of 74,412 cm3. Cylinder with a diameter of 664-(2x7)=650 mm and a height of 215 mm has a volume of 71,307 cm3. The volume difference between a new and worn out tire is 3105 cm3.
Typical land to sea ratio of tires is 60-70% land, depending on the type of tire. If we go with an about average value of close to 65% tread, we get the lost rubber volume of about 2000 cm3 or 2,000,000 mm3 over a single tires lifespan.
Each revolution of a tire loses about 0,04 mm3 of tread, which, according to Wolfram Alpha, is a bit less than the volume of a medium grain of sand.
If we look at the entire car with 4 tires over a kilometer of road, we get 80 mm3 or about 0,08 grams of tread lost per car per kilometer.
Your model fails to account for weight of the tyres, which has a big impact. I can’t figure out what that ratio is though.
Yeah way to not think about the problem or its multifaceted solutions at all. Just write out the first thing that pops into your head and hit post.
I mentioned this in a discussion a while back. Tires are a huge problem for society.
Forget about the ocean. There is a more pressing matter as they are closer from tires than oceans : our lungs !!
deleted by creator
Microplastics? Yes.
Microplastics cause damage and death to cells in the body. While not confirmed, it is believed that this will result in a cancer risk in the future.
deleted by creator
Research into those topics is still ongoing.
Right now the cytotoxic effects are the only effects confirmed in humans I believe.
We are consuming microplastics at an alarming rate, it’s found in our stomach, brain, lungs and blood. Fish and drinking water are the two largest sources of human ingestion of microplastics.
If carcinogenic then it would likely be pretty substantial.
deleted by creator
Yes. It’s an assumption but the higher the exposure generally means higher chances of issues. Such is true for most things, especially other cytotoxic materials.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
