Pollution from brakes and tyres
Discussion
pablo said:
Interesting you chose the 5 mile extreme not the 1.1 mile alternative… cars are brilliant, they are also a major contributor to co2 emissions, road fatalities and congestion. I know, I know, pistonheads, cars, clarkson, grrr, I’ll make my own way to Mumsnet….
CO2? Too bad. My carbon footprint is smaller than the world leaders and celebs telling us to stop.Road fatalities? A price worth paying for the upsides. 5 per billion miles in 2021. We could virtually eliminate road deaths by limiting vehicle speeds to 15mph. We don't because we make the trade off.
.https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021/reported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-2021#overall-casualties-and-casualty-rates
Congestion. Not a problem. Build more roads. Inner city congestion? Self limiting. When it gets bad people use alternatives.
PS I support reasonable measures to reduce road deaths even more than we have. I would have a straight ban for anyone caught using their phone. No exceptions for a totting up ban If your license is that important don't speed. Plenty more ideas for when I rule the world.
pablo said:
Interesting you chose the 5 mile extreme not the 1.1 mile alternative… cars are brilliant, they are also a major contributor to co2 emissions, road fatalities and congestion. I know, I know, pistonheads, cars, clarkson, grrr, I’ll make my own way to Mumsnet….
Largely nonsense though in comparison to industry, heavy transportation and air travel. Low hanging fruit as ever. carlo996 said:
Largely nonsense though in comparison to industry, heavy transportation and air travel. Low hanging fruit as ever.
This^Vehicle pollution is a very small percentage. Aircraft , industry and marine transport contribute massively to co2 levels. Large ships burn HFO which is just distillate crude oil which needs heating before its introduced to the injectors. Many engines do not have exhaust after treatment.
EV's being touted as 'zero emission' is far from the truth, its just pushing emissions from the tail pipe to the power stations. Wind/ solar not being suitable for continuous power generation its down to gas and nuclear. Waste from the latter is active for many thousands of years. Burying it half a km underground in concrete and brass capsules at the Finnish facility has major drawbacks and has a finite capacity anyway.
The whole 'zero emission' EV thing is a fallacy..
pablo said:
NMNeil said:
It's no secret is it?, just open your eyes.
"UK Government Transport Minister Trudy Harrison recently spoke at a mobility conference, addressing the future of personal mobility. In her comments, she said it was necessary to ditch the "20th-century thinking centred around private vehicle ownership and towards greater flexibility, with personal choice and low carbon shared transport."
TfL’s director of buses Louise Cheeseman said: "Continuing our dependency on cars, especially for journeys that could easily be made by bus, would be catastrophic for our health and the environment.”
"By 2041 we would like to see 8 out of every 10 trips made on foot, by cycle or by public transport."
The mayor of London's transport plan.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/easy...
I could cite many more, but just those show that's it's no conspiracy, it's a documented fact that the government wants you out of your cars.
This is the issue, 71% of journeys over a mile and under five miles are by car. Sure people will come up with a dozen reasons why they don’t want to walk or cycle, and some will be valid, but the car as default mode of transport for all journeys is ridiculous "UK Government Transport Minister Trudy Harrison recently spoke at a mobility conference, addressing the future of personal mobility. In her comments, she said it was necessary to ditch the "20th-century thinking centred around private vehicle ownership and towards greater flexibility, with personal choice and low carbon shared transport."
TfL’s director of buses Louise Cheeseman said: "Continuing our dependency on cars, especially for journeys that could easily be made by bus, would be catastrophic for our health and the environment.”
"By 2041 we would like to see 8 out of every 10 trips made on foot, by cycle or by public transport."
The mayor of London's transport plan.
https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/easy...
I could cite many more, but just those show that's it's no conspiracy, it's a documented fact that the government wants you out of your cars.
And the powers that be have openly said yes.
blue al said:
Remove speed humps if you want to reduce brake dust from built up areas…
This. And all the other congestion inducing measures that have been implemented over the years; road closures, one way systems, bus lanes introduced by halving road capacity for other traffic, 24 hour traffic lights on roundabouts, deliberately un-sequenced lights…Every single measure which causes a vehicle to slow down unnecessarily increases pollution. As my driving instructor said decades ago: the accelerator uses fuel, the brake wastes it.
NMNeil said:
RECr said:
Our friend in New Mexico rubs his hands with glee.
Why would you say that?Just giving you a heads up in case you wanted to stock up.
I rub my hands in glee for things like this.
https://www.carscoops.com/2022/09/detroit-firms-fi...
And this.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2022/08/22/new-bill-wo...
k we aren't in the USA.randomeddy said:
But looking at how the battery materials are produced makes any tyre pollution fade into insignificance.
How’s that then?How’s it worse than building an ice vehicle drivetrain?
How’s it worse than oil extraction and refining?
Don’t say lithium. There’s hardly and lithium used in the batteries, let alone the fabled lithium mined by children.
No. I haven’t got an EV.
donkmeister said:
Isn't the point about tyres and brakes that once cars aren't burning fossil fuels they will be the biggest pollutants from road vehicles? Not that they'll start fitting asbestos brake hads and anthrax-filled tyres for sts and giggles.
It's aiming sights at a future problem, i.e. being proactive. It's like saying "once the house has been underpinned it'll stop subsiding... I think then we'll need to do something about the leaky roof" - if you heard someone say that you wouldn't think it was all a conspiracy, possibly backed by a bunch of shady scaffolders. You'd simply think "yeah, good idea, better to start thinking about it now rather than waiting for your joists to start rotting and then hoping it will get better by itself."
Absolutely. However, as the consumer we need to always ask a couple of core questions:ts and giggles.It's aiming sights at a future problem, i.e. being proactive. It's like saying "once the house has been underpinned it'll stop subsiding... I think then we'll need to do something about the leaky roof" - if you heard someone say that you wouldn't think it was all a conspiracy, possibly backed by a bunch of shady scaffolders. You'd simply think "yeah, good idea, better to start thinking about it now rather than waiting for your joists to start rotting and then hoping it will get better by itself."
A). Is a proposal resulting from a tangible problem or because people employed to find issues and who must find issues haven't been able to find any issues?
B) is the PM2.5 toxicity of car tyres or brake dust a specific risk to human health?
For example, in some urban environments 60 percent of PM2.5 and 73 percent of PM10 is linked to NEE (Non Exhaust Emmisions)
However, not all particles are born equal.
The fact that 60% of a car's emissions stem from tyre dust could be awesome as the particulates may present zero health risk to humans.
The key question to be asking is what is the specific toxicity of dust from tyres to humans?
Pollen, for example, is the most prolific air born particulate in an urban environment. It also causes the greatest respiratory issues because the shape of a pollen particle is specifically designed to be sticky so it clings to the lungs alveoli very easily.
Particulates from diesel are bad because they are also very angular and those angular surfaces hold toxic heavy metals. This means that diesel particulates have a propensity to stick in the alveoli and then deliver their surface toxins to the bloodstream. A double whammy. But even diesel particulates in 2020 different greatly from 2000 due to more efficient burning and cleaner fuels containing fewer toxins.
Conversely, coal particulates aren't that harmful. They are spherical so don't stick and anthracite has very few toxins. The historical issue being the sheer volume of these particulates.
Now, the question I would have for the EU is what they have based their research on? This is the primary document for what is a very, very little studied science to date: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4433/10/2/99/htm yet it has not been referenced. Primarily because it highlights there is little risk.
The science is very weak, the primary paper has not been referenced. The research used does not make reference to pollen nor does it take into account rain fall frequency which is the primary driver for NEE particulates in an urban environment. But it does strike me as interesting that very few brake pads or tyres are manufactured in the EU.
DonkeyApple said:
Interesting stuff
The issue can, n the final analysis, be boiled down to one word: control. The powers that be have observed, with envious eyes, the degree of control the Stassi had without today's technology. Hell they're even talking "theoretically" about social credit scoring, like in (that other bastion of freedom) China.As some else on here said the mode of personal transport really doesn't matter, it'll be protested against/outlawed because....
DodgyGeezer said:
The issue can, n the final analysis, be boiled down to one word: control. The powers that be have observed, with envious eyes, the degree of control the Stassi had without today's technology. Hell they're even talking "theoretically" about social credit scoring, like in (that other bastion of freedom) China.
As some else on here said the mode of personal transport really doesn't matter, it'll be protested against/outlawed because....
One certainly needs to consider whether a proposed change is beneficial to society or a function of civil servants, quango and charity employees as well as researchers needing to justify their roles. As some else on here said the mode of personal transport really doesn't matter, it'll be protested against/outlawed because....
The issue with tyre debris is that there simply hasn't been enough research upon which to build any credible view let alone action. There's been next to no funding into this area.
Tyre debris could be hugely toxic. It could be pretty much harmless but because there hasn't been the research there can be no intelligent conclusion as of yet.
In this particular case I don't rush to think that there is some grand, centralised top down conspiracy to remove cars but rather that departments have been filled with full time employees who have a perpetual need to find or create problems that need their solution.
An additional clue to what is driving many of these things is Euro7. Euro7 is incredibly interesting. It's interesting because it is so unbelievably f
king stupid to the point of lunacy. Here we have legislation that will cost a fortune to implement, tonnes of resources yet only comes into force just a brief number of years before the same legislators are ending the sale of ICE. The entire existence of Euro7 is pointless, environmental vandalism by clodhopping fools who can't see the wood for all their trees. This sort of thing tends to happen when you can't whack employees with keyboards any more.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th November 12:18
QJumper said:
Surely EVs don't put as much wear on brake pads, due to regenerative braking.
Absloutely. I had a Golf GTE PHEV, so no even full EV for nearly 100k miles. Pads weren't even half worn. Tyres however, are a different ball game. When you think about the weight of some of these SUV EV's that must be a big factor in these emissions when many of them seem to be heading towards 3,000kg.
As someone above said, hitting personal transport is the end game.
DodgyGeezer said:
DonkeyApple said:
Interesting stuff
The issue can, n the final analysis, be boiled down to one word: control. The powers that be have observed, with envious eyes, the degree of control the Stassi had without today's technology. Hell they're even talking "theoretically" about social credit scoring, like in (that other bastion of freedom) China.As some else on here said the mode of personal transport really doesn't matter, it'll be protested against/outlawed because....
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: profit
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff