8 ms·
Nice list. I live car-free because it seems immoral to contribute to Alzheimers, cancers, fertility problems, autism and mental health issues. Anyone using a ca
by BrianHenryIE 5y ago
Nice list. I live car-free because it seems immoral to contribute to Alzheimers, cancers, fertility problems, autism and mental health issues. Anyone using a car (including electric) for a journey under ten miles needs to really think about the damage they are part of (disabilities excepted, as in all walks of life). If fewer people used cars, public transit would become more sustainable, more and more routes would be added. Fewer people would die.
- NoPicklez 5y agoWhy electric included?
- vanattab 5y agoProbably because tire ware is a (the primary?) Cause of vehicle air pollution.
- _RPL5_ 5y agoI dunno what the author meant, but probably alluding to the fact that the electricity powering your EV comes from a plant burning fossil fuels. I've been curious about this topic for a while: what contributes more pollution per mile traveled -- an internal combustion engine or a Tesla charged with power from a coal/gas/wind/nuclear plant. If anyone encountered an analysis like that, please link!
- kiba 5y agoElectric cars can make noise.
- NoPicklez 5y agoThey make less noise than a bicycle
- pshc 5y agoDepends on where you live. Electricity in BC is all hydro.
- euroderf 5y agoA study that emerged in the last few days says that in such scenarios in OECD countries, and including all life cycle costs, EVs generate only about 40% of the CO2 emissions of ICEs. No link at hand, sorry.
- BrianHenryIE 5y agoTwo directly relevant health reasons: "'London throat': Toxic brake dust could cause condition, scientists say" [1] "Pollution from car tires is killing off salmon on US west coast, study finds" [2] [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326 [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/coho-salmon-pollution-car-tires-die-off https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/coho-sal... Then secondary problems such as sedentary lifestyles and children unable to play on their street because of the dominance of cars (car numbers increased almost 3x in Ireland since 1990, when I was a kid). There are more reasons cars are bad for society and bad for the individual – loss of communities dues to freeways [3]; loss of sense of community due to people not walking around and meeting their neighbours [4]; a ticket price to society when a car is deemed a requirement just to work and shop [5]; the 1.35 million people who die in road traffic accidents each year [6]. [3] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2020/07/28/advocates-rally-to-tear-down-highways-that-bulldozed-black-neighborhoods https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/16/cars-are-fuelling-our-isolation-from-strangers https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/16/cars-are-fue... [5] https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/03/21/florida-took-an-aggressive-approach-to-unemployment-fraud-was-it-worth-it/ https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/03/21/fl... [6] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565684 https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565684
- NoPicklez 5y agoThe reason I asked why electric included was because brakes within electric cars can operate very differently than that of combustion cars. Whereby the brake pads within electric vehicle almost do not need replacing for the life of the car. Vastly reducing the amount of brake dust that is given off the vehicle in comparison to combustion vehicles. The same way in which riding a bicycle produced brake dust but not in the same volumes are combustion cars. Car tires I completely agree however almost anything that rolls uses rubber and as such if we introduced more bicycles instead of cars we would also be polluting the streets with rubber. You could argue however that this is offset by the health benefits this would provide people rather than being sedentary in a car. With regards to communities I would argue that nothing is stopping people from walking around and meeting their neighbours. However, people can visit other communities or extend their community boundary using cars and railways etc. Therefore our sense of community isn't just those immediately, but those across town as well.
- coding123 5y agoMy long term plan is to have a solar array dedicated to charging my future electric truck, since panels and inverters are near cheap as dirt now on Alibaba. edit: \/ didn't know thanks, did a quick search - https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1129809_tire-dust-is-pollution-and-this-invention-will-help-vehicles-clean-up-as-they-go https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1129809_tire-dust-is-po... is something like this available? Also it won't help as I am a person that needs a truck. I transport shit all the time. I'm constantly trucking stuff - I'm not one of those show-offs that own a truck just because.
- mrpopo 5y agoElectric cars don't solve the problem of particulate matter, in fact if you buy an electric truck, it may make the problem worse because of the weight (wear on the tires is one of the biggest sources of particulate emissions).
- londons_explore 5y agoI'm pretty sure that with sufficient R&D we could invent better tyres that either didn't wear much or were made of less damaging materials. Just nobody is putting money into it.
- kec 5y agoTires are a multibillion dollar industry, why would you think no one is putting money into R&D for it?
- londons_explore 5y agoTyres that didn't wear wouldn't need replacing... Thats why lightbulb companies famously stopped making bulbs last longer. A good chunk of wear can be eliminated by ensuring tyres never skid by having per wheel torque control, which future 4-motor EV's will have 'for free'.
- 5y ago
- megablast 5y agoCars are the number one cause of microplastics near waterways. It is insane we allow cars in our modern society. I too am car free.
- refurb 5y agoExcellent! Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Or do you purchase things transported with vehicles?
- eurasiantiger 5y agoI’m really sorry but your attitude is very toxic.
- refurb 5y agoMore or less toxic than condemning cars but then benefiting from them?
- eurasiantiger 5y agoMuch more, because one is just self-deception, but you are being an asshole towards other human beings, on purpose.
- refurb 5y agoCalling out hypocrisy is being an asshole?
- alpaca128 5y agoIs it hypocritical to make the first step and reduce car traffic overall, just because they're not yet a perfect human being that prevents all suffering indirectly connected to them? Complaining about that (and in that tone) helps nobody.
- 5y ago
- throwaway984393 5y agoMany urban areas (especially poor ones) have had fewer miles driven per person, but it didn't lead to more transit in those areas. You have to actually allocate budget to get more transit. But even when it's sorely needed, budget doesn't get allocated to transit, for a whole host of reasons. So public transit isn't going to grow just because you gave up a car.
- Johnny555 5y agoThere are many towns in the USA where transit will never be viable because they are too low density - no one is going to walk 20 minutes to a bus stop a mile away to wait up to 20 minutes for a bus to take them on a 20 minute ride to town if the other option is a 10 minute drive in a car.
- caterama 5y agoI was jokingly asking a friend the other day if we might ever have to ride horses again. Probably not, but it's interesting to imagine the scenarios that would lead to that. Americans take personal vehicles for granted. Addressing climate change is going to require some uncomfortable changes.
- Johnny555 5y agoAddressing climate change is going to require some uncomfortable changes I really don't think we're up to the challenge of really stopping (or significantly slowing) climate change (if it's possible at all now) and will end up spending much more money (and discomfort) mitigating the more severe effects of climate change than if we'd just started making changes a decade or more ago.
- goodpoint 5y ago> they are too low density This is by choice and can be changed.
- Johnny555 5y agoYou're dismissing the scope of the problem, yes, given unlimited resources and people's willingness to change, anything can change. But we don't have unlimited resources, and many people don't want to change. But the fact remains that America has many low-density areas that will never be affordably served by transit. That's not just in this country, Europe has areas that aren't well served by transit, even Japan has areas that aren't well served by transit.
- rank0 5y agoThis is a ludicrous philosophy. I suppose you also take no part in any activity that has any negative impact? There is an indirect negative impact of ANY modern lifestyle. The really expensive impact comes from of industrialization and technological advancement. Clearly you have a device to write this message, as well as power and internet connection. You might use AC or heating, you might rely on supply chains for food. Own any index funds? You own minuscule pieces of companies that produce cars, tobacco, or frack for oil. Your very existence is expensive for the earth and for society. Same applies for your kids if you have any. Most drivers cannot practically manage walking/biking or public transit as their sole means of travel. Frankly that idea comes from a privileged and niche bubble perspective.
- BrianHenryIE 5y agoAs I become aware of how my decisions affect other people, I do my best to minimize what I can. The four most impactful lifestyle choices you can make to reduce your effect on climate [1] are: * have fewer children * live car-free * become vegetarian * avoid transatlantic air travel I now live car-free and vegan. I've no kids, yet (maybe never). I live in California but I'm from Ireland - I'll probably take a flight home soon. So no, I don't totally avoid everything that can cause harm, but at least I try. What is ludicrous is using a car for journeys under ten miles. It is abhorrently selfish to do so knowing that your pollution contributes to sickness in people. People should maybe take a pay cut, or live in a smaller home, closer to where they work. But instead they trade the health of others for their own standard of living. ("some of you may die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay") > Most drivers cannot practically manage walking/biking or public transit as their sole means of travel. In a large part because of cars. Cars beget cars. Car companies conspired to shut down public transit. Now people in those areas need a car. Then it's held as a example of why we need cars. Urban sprawl was enabled by cars. Now people need cars to get to those areas. It's very difficult to find a problem that cars solve that wasn't itself caused by cars. What is ludicrous is to call how I actually live ludicrous. I enjoy a high standard of living. Without a car. [1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541
- 5y ago
- renewiltord 5y agoI don’t really care that much that other people die so this isn’t a convincing argument. Most people are like me.
- aww_dang 5y agoObesity related conditions are some of the leading causes of death. There are also advantages to simplifying your lifestyle and expenses. Sometimes less consumption can be an end unto itself. We can disagree about climate change and the rest of it, but the results of a sedentary lifestyle can't be ignored. There's also no room for indignation at an imagined holier-than-thou position when you take this approach. I've found this simple, obvious observation about obesity especially interesting in regards to the current public health scare and the rise of the bio-security state.
- goodpoint 5y agoThank you for this. It's amazing how HN defends the existing car culture despite the alternatives.