Breathing in Micro-rubber/micro-plastics from disintegrating car tires isn’t fixed at all by electrification.
I can also hear ICE cars approach from behind when I’m cycling, but that isn’t the case with electric vehicles (which might be using “autopilot” and can’t see me on the road). I’m not sure if that whirring sound is present outside of low speeds, but I certainly can’t hear it with wind crossing my ears. Sometimes tire noise is audible, but not always.
On the other hand, ICE drivers are more likely to intentionally try to hit me soooo
But in the comparison of tailpipe emissions (0.02 mg/km) vs tire emissions (36mg/km), I know which one I’m more worried about.
Nick Molden of Emissions Analytics seems to think that the heavier the vehicle, the worse the wear on tires seems to be (though it greatly depends on driving style and torque). That’d probably mean heavy EVs and SUVs are the worst for this.
Not that bicycles are completely clean- but there’s probably a time in the future to worry about bicycle microplastics- after the cars have been phased out.
We’re talking about personal subjective measures, so there isn’t an objective “right” or “wrong” answer, but there’s a bit of a double standard to your logic. Here’s what I’m seeing from your stance:
ICE vs EV = even though EVs better, its still a car so still not good enough so use third choice “bicycling”
EV tire pollution vs bicycle tire pollution = bicycles produce the same type of pollution but less of it, so its good enough
It seems like your logic should follow:
EV tire pollution vs bicycle tire pollution = bicycles produce the same type of pollution but less of it, but still not good enough so use third choice “walking”
You could argue “walking is too slow, while biking is faster and at least less destructive than worse alternatives for fast travel”. However, that would also seem to introduce “bicycling is too slow, while EV is faster and at least less destructive than worse ICE alternatives for fast travel”.
So you like bicycling, and there’s nothing wrong with that as it is purely subjective and there isn’t a wrong answer, but if you’re adhering to your logic, you should eschew bicycling for walking as its less destructive using an objective argument.
So you say because bisicles are not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
The still produce way less tire pollution than cars.
You only have two tires instead of 4.
A bike has the fraction of the weight of a car.
The tires are relatively thin and small, while car tires are just monsters. Especially those of electric vehicles.
So accusing that guy of double standards is just wrong. The problems bikes have are negligle, compared of a lot of things we use on a daily basis.
And btw the tire pollution isn’t the worst part of an ev, by far. The production of the battery alone produces more co2, uses more resources and produces more waste (especially a lot of chemical waste), than 10 bikes produce during their whole livespann.
So you say because bisicles are not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
Nope, never said that.
Maybe this will illustrate my point better. I’ll use your words as the template:
So you say because walking is not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
Shoes still produce way less tire pollution than bicycles.
You only have ZERO tires instead of 2.
A pair of shoes has the fraction of the weight of a bicycle.
The soles are relatively thin and small, while bicycle tires are just monsters. Especially those of mountain bikes.
The problems shoes have are negligible, compared of a lot of things we use on a daily basis. And btw the tire pollution isn’t the worst part of an bicycles, by far. The production of the steel frame or carbon fiber resins alone produces more co2, uses more resources and produces more waste (especially a lot of chemical waste), than 10 pairs of shoes produce during their whole livespan.
So back to me: An argument against EVs with bicycles as the alternative also works as an argument against bicycles with walking as the alternative. That’s the double standard. Or to put it another way, if an argument against EVs (in this context) in favor of bicycles is valid, then that same argument against ICE in favor of EVs is valid.
Shoes still produce way less tire pollution than bicycles
Do you have a source for that? Because that doesn’t match my experience at all, especially if we measure by wear per mile. Plus, shoes are a lot more finicky than bike tires. If they’re not a good fit or if the wearer has bad walking habits, they’ll wear out prematurely and end up in a landfill with a lot of rubber left. I tend to wear out the balls of my feet, for example. To do the same with a bike tire you’d have to be downright abusive, locking brakes on pavement and stuff
If now you’re moving the goalposts to “wear per mile” then car tires win substantially over bicycle tires.
According to this source bicycle tires should be replaced after about 4,000 miles. source
Whereas according to this source an average car tire should last 50,000 miles source
The argument against bicycles vs cars, using tire wear as the metric, gets even worse when you introduce the cost of tires in bicycle vs car. You get many MANY more miles per tire per dollar on a car than you do on a bicycle.
I understand all the flaws in this comparison, but this is the metric which you introduced to be the problem to solve for.
I think that the wear per distance is the only metric that makes sense, given these are modes of transportation. To be totally honest with you though, I only skimmed the thread up until your comment, and the statement about shoes caught my eye, so I had to ask. So any sources on shoe wear? I’m not even trying to argue, I’ve just had this question for months because I’ve heard others make the same claim that shoes pollute less than bike tires.
Just chiming in to mention electric bikes, which are faster than regular bikes, lighter than cars (thus less tire pollution), longer range than most people could reasonably bike, lower price point than evs, and cheaper to maintain than evs. It would be a reasonable alternative for short distance trips in cities and suburbs while cars are phased out in favor of other alternatives (buses, trains, trolleys, etc)
If transportation is necessary, find ways to mitigate emissions as best as possible. If emissions are unavoidable, use the thing with least emissions (small-tired lightweight vehicles) until you research a solution to a tire material that isn’t harmful (which is being worked on I think). Busses mitigate a dozen or two cars. Local rail mitigates a few busses and a few hundred cars. Essentially, personal vehicles should be small and lightweight, and essential mass transit or city services should be large enough to serve an entire area.
Breathing in Micro-rubber/micro-plastics from disintegrating car tires isn’t fixed at all by electrification.
I can also hear ICE cars approach from behind when I’m cycling, but that isn’t the case with electric vehicles (which might be using “autopilot” and can’t see me on the road). I’m not sure if that whirring sound is present outside of low speeds, but I certainly can’t hear it with wind crossing my ears. Sometimes tire noise is audible, but not always.
On the other hand, ICE drivers are more likely to intentionally try to hit me soooo
That problem isn’t fixed by bicycling either.
But in the comparison of tailpipe emissions (0.02 mg/km) vs tire emissions (36mg/km), I know which one I’m more worried about.
Nick Molden of Emissions Analytics seems to think that the heavier the vehicle, the worse the wear on tires seems to be (though it greatly depends on driving style and torque). That’d probably mean heavy EVs and SUVs are the worst for this.
Not that bicycles are completely clean- but there’s probably a time in the future to worry about bicycle microplastics- after the cars have been phased out.
We’re talking about personal subjective measures, so there isn’t an objective “right” or “wrong” answer, but there’s a bit of a double standard to your logic. Here’s what I’m seeing from your stance:
It seems like your logic should follow:
You could argue “walking is too slow, while biking is faster and at least less destructive than worse alternatives for fast travel”. However, that would also seem to introduce “bicycling is too slow, while EV is faster and at least less destructive than worse ICE alternatives for fast travel”.
So you like bicycling, and there’s nothing wrong with that as it is purely subjective and there isn’t a wrong answer, but if you’re adhering to your logic, you should eschew bicycling for walking as its less destructive using an objective argument.
So you say because bisicles are not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
The still produce way less tire pollution than cars.
So accusing that guy of double standards is just wrong. The problems bikes have are negligle, compared of a lot of things we use on a daily basis. And btw the tire pollution isn’t the worst part of an ev, by far. The production of the battery alone produces more co2, uses more resources and produces more waste (especially a lot of chemical waste), than 10 bikes produce during their whole livespann.
No, they are saying that the same logic of that comment against EVs can be applied on bicycles.
It is attacking the logic, not the concept.
Nope, never said that.
Maybe this will illustrate my point better. I’ll use your words as the template:
So you say because walking is not perfect we should just don’t give a shit?
Shoes still produce way less tire pollution than bicycles.
The problems shoes have are negligible, compared of a lot of things we use on a daily basis. And btw the tire pollution isn’t the worst part of an bicycles, by far. The production of the steel frame or carbon fiber resins alone produces more co2, uses more resources and produces more waste (especially a lot of chemical waste), than 10 pairs of shoes produce during their whole livespan.
So back to me: An argument against EVs with bicycles as the alternative also works as an argument against bicycles with walking as the alternative. That’s the double standard. Or to put it another way, if an argument against EVs (in this context) in favor of bicycles is valid, then that same argument against ICE in favor of EVs is valid.
Do you have a source for that? Because that doesn’t match my experience at all, especially if we measure by wear per mile. Plus, shoes are a lot more finicky than bike tires. If they’re not a good fit or if the wearer has bad walking habits, they’ll wear out prematurely and end up in a landfill with a lot of rubber left. I tend to wear out the balls of my feet, for example. To do the same with a bike tire you’d have to be downright abusive, locking brakes on pavement and stuff
If now you’re moving the goalposts to “wear per mile” then car tires win substantially over bicycle tires.
According to this source bicycle tires should be replaced after about 4,000 miles. source
Whereas according to this source an average car tire should last 50,000 miles source
The argument against bicycles vs cars, using tire wear as the metric, gets even worse when you introduce the cost of tires in bicycle vs car. You get many MANY more miles per tire per dollar on a car than you do on a bicycle.
I understand all the flaws in this comparison, but this is the metric which you introduced to be the problem to solve for.
I think that the wear per distance is the only metric that makes sense, given these are modes of transportation. To be totally honest with you though, I only skimmed the thread up until your comment, and the statement about shoes caught my eye, so I had to ask. So any sources on shoe wear? I’m not even trying to argue, I’ve just had this question for months because I’ve heard others make the same claim that shoes pollute less than bike tires.
Just chiming in to mention electric bikes, which are faster than regular bikes, lighter than cars (thus less tire pollution), longer range than most people could reasonably bike, lower price point than evs, and cheaper to maintain than evs. It would be a reasonable alternative for short distance trips in cities and suburbs while cars are phased out in favor of other alternatives (buses, trains, trolleys, etc)
but even if you deleted all the cars, you’d still have small trucks, busses, fire trucks, etc.
perhaps instead of saying no to car rolling things, come up with superior ways to roll things?
cycles leave the same residue, their wheels are simply smaller.
If transportation is necessary, find ways to mitigate emissions as best as possible. If emissions are unavoidable, use the thing with least emissions (small-tired lightweight vehicles) until you research a solution to a tire material that isn’t harmful (which is being worked on I think). Busses mitigate a dozen or two cars. Local rail mitigates a few busses and a few hundred cars. Essentially, personal vehicles should be small and lightweight, and essential mass transit or city services should be large enough to serve an entire area.
Yup.