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.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

especially if we measure by wear per mile.

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.

[–] 0ops@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

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.