238
"tHeRe'$ n0 rEpL@CeMeNt FoR dIsPlaCeMeNt!!!1!!!1!!“
(startrek.website)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2024
238 points (82.9% liked)
Lemmy Shitpost
26809 readers
2840 users here now
Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.
Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!
Rules:
1. Be Respectful
Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.
Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.
...
2. No Illegal Content
Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.
That means:
-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals
-No CSA content or Revenge Porn
-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)
...
3. No Spam
Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.
-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.
-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.
-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers
-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.
...
4. No Porn/Explicit
Content
-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.
-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.
...
5. No Enciting Harassment,
Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts
-Do not Brigade other Communities
-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.
-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.
-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.
...
6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.
-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.
...
If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.
Also check out:
Partnered Communities:
1.Memes
10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)
Reach out to
All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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.
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)
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.
I’m not sure if a study exists for it, but I’d assume walking produces more microplastics/km than bicycling because of how soft shoe rubber is and how scrubby the action is. Who knows. There is a study I saw that said that walking produces more CO2 per km than cycling, but I’m not sure if this is parallel to microplastic emissions.
The logic will make sense if you think that tailpipe emissions are so litte, it’s almost not worth considering in comparison to tire emissions. So the next step is to say “so how do we limit the microplastics in the air and in the ground on a necessary part of transportation”- the answer is to make it smaller and lighter. And if you want to go distances that you can’t get to by bike, that’s where public transportation comes in.