Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

For a policy that's ostensibly designed to fight air pollution and "reclaim streets for pedestrians and cyclists", penalizing vehicle tonnage seems like a weird way of achieving it. If you want to fight air pollution, charging based on emissions like the ULEZ in London[1] seems like a much more effective way of doing so, especially since a 20 year old sedan can easily emit more air pollution than a recent SUV. As for "reclaim[ing] streets for pedestrians and cyclists", the bigger problem is arguably on-street parking itself and the space it occupies, rather than the of the cars occupying them. If you want to create more space for pedestrians and cyclists, replace on-street parking with cycling lanes or sidewalks, and the market (for parking spaces) will take care of the rest.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Low_Emission_Zone

View on HN

1. Larger vehicles pose a much greater threat to pedestrians and cyclists, both from frequency and consequence of incidents.

2. Tire emissions are more toxic than exhaust [1] and tire wear is dramatically greater on heavier vehicles. This is about air pollution in the city, not climate change globally.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/03/car-tyre...

not to mention the road damage caused is to the fourth power of the axle load

That also implies that trucks are much worse than cars OR suvs, and should be banned entirely as well.

Yes, out of the city ideally, you will use cargo train. In fact, in some (french) city lorry are forbidden, only local service are permitted. The most heavy one are already forbidden on the WE, day off and summer all over France.

But then you'd need to have a viable alternative and that's a bit of a problem for 'last miles' delivery of goods. But in-city SUV traffic is entirely optional.

What range of weight is that fourth power rule valid for?

> 2. Tire emissions are more toxic than exhaust [1] and tire wear is dramatically greater on heavier vehicles. This is about air pollution in the city, not climate change globally.

Is there any info on how this impacts the environmental benefits of EVs? Or is the lack of combustion still a net gain?

I found one write-up investigating this a few months ago:

https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/electric-vehicles-...

Trying to summarize: EVs still seem to be a net gain, but non-exhaust emissions are still a significant problem. We don't know how bad that problem really is because there's not enough research yet.

What are you measuring ? CO2 emission or particles count in the air ?

Worst for particles emission, better for CO2 emission, basically. Hope we will improve down tire emission.

Particle pollution from car tires are much worse from heavy vehicles. Apparently recent research suggest that emissions tires are much larger and more dangerous than exhaust emissions.

https://e360.yale.edu/features/tire-pollution-toxic-chemical...

This seems to be pretty wildly left out of the gas->electric push then?

I’m not saying it makes electrification less valuable, but rather the push for electric has very much been sold as “solving” emissions (with some minor debate about the emissions of manufacturing & supply chain)

I guess electrification is phase 1, tire compound science is going to have to be phase 2?

It solves emitting CO2, who h hurts the planet.

wepple, it’s called greenwashing. It’s left out deliberately. Think how many new cars can be sold while telling people they are saviours too!

No EVs are to reduce CO2 emissions. Not particle emissions. Particles are tires (and to some extent diesels).

This is really useful context, but doesn’t entirely invalidate my point, right?

We should reduce one type (possibly the most urgent), and then move on to solving the next?

Yes, if this tradeff wasn't made then EVs wouldn't be subsidized as they are across the world. But in some places the local problems are larger so they let people pay for negative externalities. I can't see a problem with that. There is surely also a progressive element to this: people who drive large cars are assumed to be wealthier so able to carry more of the city/regions revenue from taxes and fees.

From the article:

>Tires release 100 times the amount of volatile organic compounds as a modern tailpipe, says an analyst.

If that's the case, the policy is still strange by giving electric cars a significantly higher weight limit, even though the difference in emissions is negligible.

Yes, that's a serious problem. And it also is interesting given the EV drivers who believe that they are improving the planet. The best way to do that is to not drive at all, or to ride a bike, not an EV which at scale is not all that much better than an ICE with the exception of tailpipe emissions (which is a big deal).

ICE additional pollution isn’t only coming from the tailpipes. The fuel doesn’t spontaneously generate itself in the tank, unfortunately.

I've visited some .ca fracking sites, and yes, you are 100% right.

The difference in emissions isn’t negligible: a new EV is a net positive to carbon emissions over an existing ICE in only 2 years, even assuming a dirty electric source.

Volatile organic compounds are a very specific type of pollutant (not CO2), and much less important than CO2 and a more localized problem in the grand scheme of things.

It's the lesser of evils. EVs must be heavier by fact of volumetric/mass energy density alone (all else being equivalent).

I just don't like having large vehicles around as a pedestrian and cyclist, anything that looks like I would get crushed under the car instead of over the hood, and don't mind them being specifically targetted/penalized.

It’s to get rid of SUV driving arseholes - not really emissions.

If you are driving an SUV in a city, there’s a decent probability you are an arsehole.

People interested in and passionate about transportation in cities have long been warning that it doesn't solve anything if you just replace every combustion engine car with a (likely bigger) electric car, and incentives for them are wholly absurd in urban spaces.

The thing is that there are multiple things that are problems and which can have independent(and even contradictory) solutions. Like for instance - cars cause noise and pollution in cities where people live and breathe.

Solution: give large incentives for people to buy EVs instead, so you solve the noise and pollution problems(not entirely, but in a large part).

But obviously that does nothing to the lack of parking spaces, people using/not using public transit, cycling etc etc etc. It's just one of the sides of a very complex cube.

There is a simple solution - use a small electric car/microcar with small battery for driving in the city.

the BMW i3 fits that, as did the Fiat 500e?

(i had a 2014 BMW i3, and it was super weird and super useful for just such situations, including suburbia in my case)

A Renault Twizy would be better. Or much better, an electric bike. Paris bike infrastructure is getting very good.

In traffic the Twizy isn't all that much better than a motorcycle, I would go for a car chassis based EV before even considering a Twizy. I also think they are way too expensive for what they offer.

To each his own. As a motorcyclist, I feel a motorcycle is better than a Twizy, but in Paris a Twizy is a lot better than a small car for navigating traffic and parking.

As a parent I wouldn't go near a motorcycle let alone ride one in traffic. When I was a kid that was different but the responsibility towards my family precludes me from taking excessive risk. The Twizy embodies excessive risk for me to a degree that I would not drive one.

Yes ! I worked on the Mobilize Duo (the Twizy successor, will be available soon) and it's revolutionary. I think it may be too much for French people, It's about establishing a new way of thinking.

The car can't be purchased, only rented. It's very light and ONLY designed for urban trip. There is also a version for light local service !

We have a VW e-UP, that fits the bill perfectly, and I honestly like it more than our 400bhp Volvo. It fits everywhere, goes 150 miles on a charge, fits us both and a child seat, Costco shopping.......honestly that's the perfect city/mixed use EV. And if only weighs 1200kg.

The e-UP is a nice little vehicle. We had an ICE one (the cheapest version) as a company runabout and it was ridiculously fuel efficient and light, the e- version wasn't for sale yet then but if it had been I'm pretty sure we would have bought one. And likely then we'd still have it today.

Perhaps it’s because getting hit by a SUV tends to be much worse for a passenger or cyclist than being hit by a smaller car?

> penalizing vehicle tonnage seems like a weird way of achieving it

It's not a "weird way", it's a good heuristic.

You say "good heuristic", I say "half-assing it", especially when you consider a system to determine which cars are eligible for the charge would involve some sort of vehicle model database, and it would be equally easy to have the system work off of emissions rather than tonnage.

Particle emissions from tires is probably not available data by model, but it can be pretty reliably inferred from the weight of the vehicle. If you want exhaust emissions you can just take the emission values from the database by model.

Also weight is a reasonable proxy for size and hazard to pedestrians. EVs get unfairly penalized for that though (for being dense)

> penalizing vehicle tonnage seems like a weird way of achieving it

There's probably not that much variation in automobile density, so regulating those that are heavier is a good proxy for those that are larger.

And even if the number of parking spots is the same, a row of little cars people can see over and between is better than a row of big SUVs that they can't.

> a row of little cars people can see over and between is better than a row of big SUVs that they can't

An underappreciated criticism of modern vehicles.

Diminishes the visibility of and for cyclists as well.

I'm 5'11 and as a pedestrian SUVs and 'trucks' block my visibility. Not to mention that along with the 'ride height' you get a front bumper that looks designed to just flatten you (you'd be forgiven for thinking this was intentional given the fetish for 'aggressive' styling). In addition you get the added bonus of much higher headlights. Why can't we at least keep these closer to the road like on real trucks, buses, and vans?

Regulators really dropped the ball on this one. Is there actually any limit to how large a personal vehicle can get? Seems like a massive oversight due to a fixation on safety of occupants to the detriment of everyone else.

From a personal point of view, I think people who buy these bloated vehicles should consider how they would feel if their neighbours all decided minibuses were an acceptable means of personal conveyance.

> the market (for parking spaces) will take care of the rest

Where does this Aynesque belief in the invisible hand come from?

Religious economic beliefs (some flavor of libertarianism).

It's "Aynesque belief" to recognize that removing the supply of parking spots will disincentivize people from driving into the city?

Well it's France.. when there's no parking spot sidewalks and bikelanes become parking spots..

How strange! Removing spots was supposed to solve people's problems. /s

Not only is it weird to argue against a price increase, then reframing the problem to something else, and then propose the market to solve that (which means more parking spaces or higher prices). But there is no market in the first place. How is it going to solve anything?

To be fair the market was so good at turning parking in to better land uses the US spent eighty years making it illegal to build... Anything, really, without oceans of parking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com