ReportWire

Tag: transportation technology

  • San Francisco launches driverless bus service following robotaxi expansion

    San Francisco launches driverless bus service following robotaxi expansion

    SAN FRANCISCO — First came the robotaxis. Then the driverless buses arrived.

    San Francisco has launched an autonomous shuttle service — less than a week after California regulators approved the expansion of robotaxis despite traffic and safety concerns.

    The free shuttle will run daily in a fixed route called the Loop around Treasure Island, the site of a former U.S. Navy base in the middle of San Francisco Bay. The Loop makes seven stops, connecting residential neighborhoods with stores and community centers. About 2,000 people live on the island.

    The all-electric vehicle, which doesn’t have a driver’s seat or steering wheel, is staffed with an attendant who can drive the bus with a handheld controller if necessary. The county is offering the shuttle service as part of a grant-funded pilot program to assess how autonomous vehicles can supplement the public transit system.

    “Having the attendant on board makes everyone feel comfortable,” said Tilly Chang, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “This is just a demonstration for now to see, what does it look like and how does it work to have a driverless shuttle in a low-volume, low-speed environment?”

    San Francisco is one of a growing number of cities worldwide that are testing the safety and potential of self-driving vehicles to transform public transportation.

    The shuttles are operated by Beep, an Orlando, Florida-based company that has run similar pilot programs in more than a dozen U.S. communities, including service at the Miami Zoo, Mayo Clinic and Yellowstone National Park.

    “These shuttles are built for first-mile, last-mile, short connectivity routes. They’re not intended to take the place of a bus system,” said Beep project manager Shelley Caran. “The autonomous vehicle will have a better reaction time than a human and it will offer a more reliable service because they won’t be distracted.”

    During a test ride Wednesday, the shuttle drove slowly and cautiously in autonomous mode. An attendant manually steered the vehicle around a utility truck that blocked part of the road.

    “I didn’t feel unsafe,” said Dominic Lucchesi, an Oakland resident who was among the first to ride the autonomous shuttle. “I thought that it made some abrupt stops, but otherwise I felt like I was riding any other bus for the most part.”

    The boxy shuttle, which can sit up to 10 passengers, will operate 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day and circle the Loop every 20 minutes. The city has two shuttles — one can charge while the other ferries passengers.

    The autonomous shuttle pilot project was launched after the California Public Utilities Commission voted to allow two rival robotaxi companies, Cruise and Waymo, to offer around-the-clock passenger service in San Francisco.

    The approval came despite widespread complaints that the driverless taxis make unexpected stops, cause traffic backups and block emergency vehicles. On Wednesday, the city asked the commission to pause the robotaxi expansion.

    Cruise, a subsidiary of General Motors, reported on social media that one of its robotaxis crashed into a city fire truck Thursday night, sending one passenger to the hospital.

    Experts don’t anticipate the same problems with driverless buses because they’re expected to be staffed with drivers or attendants for the foreseeable future.

    “Trained operators are going to be required even as we increase automation,” said Nikolas Martelaro, autonomous-vehicle researcher at Carnegie Mellon University. “So the question there may not be how worried should someone be about losing their job versus what should they be thinking about the potential training that’s required.”

    Autonomous driving technology could make buses safer, but requiring drivers or attendants on-board could undermine one of their perceived advantages: reduced labor costs.

    “We still have to find a market for them,” said Art Guzzetti, vice president at the American Public Transportation Association. “We’re doing it to make the trip better, more efficient, not to take the worker’s job.”

    Source link

  • San Francisco launches driverless bus service following robotaxi expansion

    San Francisco launches driverless bus service following robotaxi expansion

    SAN FRANCISCO — First came the robotaxis. Then the driverless buses arrived.

    San Francisco has launched an autonomous shuttle service — less than a week after California regulators approved the expansion of robotaxis despite traffic and safety concerns.

    The free shuttle will run daily in a fixed route called the Loop around Treasure Island, the site of a former U.S. Navy base in the middle of San Francisco Bay. The Loop makes seven stops, connecting residential neighborhoods with stores and community centers. About 2,000 people live on the island.

    The all-electric vehicle, which doesn’t have a driver’s seat or steering wheel, is staffed with an attendant who can drive the bus with a handheld controller if necessary. The county is offering the shuttle service as part of a grant-funded pilot program to assess how autonomous vehicles can supplement the public transit system.

    “Having the attendant on board makes everyone feel comfortable,” said Tilly Chang, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “This is just a demonstration for now to see, what does it look like and how does it work to have a driverless shuttle in a low-volume, low-speed environment?”

    San Francisco is one of a growing number of cities worldwide that are testing the safety and potential of self-driving vehicles to transform public transportation.

    The shuttles are operated by Beep, an Orlando, Florida-based company that has run similar pilot programs in more than a dozen U.S. communities, including service at the Miami Zoo, Mayo Clinic and Yellowstone National Park.

    “These shuttles are built for first-mile, last-mile, short connectivity routes. They’re not intended to take the place of a bus system,” said Beep project manager Shelley Caran. “The autonomous vehicle will have a better reaction time than a human and it will offer a more reliable service because they won’t be distracted.”

    During a test ride Wednesday, the shuttle drove slowly and cautiously in autonomous mode. An attendant manually steered the vehicle around a utility truck that blocked part of the road.

    “I didn’t feel unsafe,” said Dominic Lucchesi, an Oakland resident who was among the first to ride the autonomous shuttle. “I thought that it made some abrupt stops, but otherwise I felt like I was riding any other bus for the most part.”

    The boxy shuttle, which can sit up to 10 passengers, will operate 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day and circle the Loop every 20 minutes. The city has two shuttles — one can charge while the other ferries passengers.

    The autonomous shuttle pilot project was launched after the California Public Utilities Commission voted to allow two rival robotaxi companies, Cruise and Waymo, to offer around-the-clock passenger service in San Francisco.

    The approval came despite widespread complaints that the driverless taxis make unexpected stops, cause traffic backups and block emergency vehicles. On Wednesday, the city asked the commission to pause the robotaxi expansion.

    Cruise, a subsidiary of General Motors, reported on social media that one of its robotaxis crashed into a city fire truck Thursday night, sending one passenger to the hospital.

    Experts don’t anticipate the same problems with driverless buses because they’re expected to be staffed with drivers or attendants for the foreseeable future.

    “Trained operators are going to be required even as we increase automation,” said Nikolas Martelaro, autonomous-vehicle researcher at Carnegie Mellon University. “So the question there may not be how worried should someone be about losing their job versus what should they be thinking about the potential training that’s required.”

    Autonomous driving technology could make buses safer, but requiring drivers or attendants on-board could undermine one of their perceived advantages: reduced labor costs.

    “We still have to find a market for them,” said Art Guzzetti, vice president at the American Public Transportation Association. “We’re doing it to make the trip better, more efficient, not to take the worker’s job.”

    Source link

  • San Francisco launches driverless bus service following robotaxi expansion

    San Francisco launches driverless bus service following robotaxi expansion

    SAN FRANCISCO — First came the robotaxis. Then the driverless buses arrived.

    San Francisco has launched an autonomous shuttle service — less than a week after California regulators approved the expansion of robotaxis despite traffic and safety concerns.

    The free shuttle will run daily in a fixed route called the Loop around Treasure Island, the site of a former U.S. Navy base in the middle of San Francisco Bay. The Loop makes seven stops, connecting residential neighborhoods with stores and community centers. About 2,000 people live on the island.

    The all-electric vehicle, which doesn’t have a driver’s seat or steering wheel, is staffed with an attendant who can drive the bus with a handheld controller if necessary. The county is offering the shuttle service as part of a grant-funded pilot program to assess how autonomous vehicles can supplement the public transit system.

    “Having the attendant on board makes everyone feel comfortable,” said Tilly Chang, executive director of the San Francisco County Transportation Authority. “This is just a demonstration for now to see, what does it look like and how does it work to have a driverless shuttle in a low-volume, low-speed environment?”

    San Francisco is one of a growing number of cities worldwide that are testing the safety and potential of self-driving vehicles to transform public transportation.

    The shuttles are operated by Beep, an Orlando, Florida-based company that has run similar pilot programs in more than a dozen U.S. communities, including service at the Miami Zoo, Mayo Clinic and Yellowstone National Park.

    “These shuttles are built for first-mile, last-mile, short connectivity routes. They’re not intended to take the place of a bus system,” said Beep project manager Shelley Caran. “The autonomous vehicle will have a better reaction time than a human and it will offer a more reliable service because they won’t be distracted.”

    During a test ride Wednesday, the shuttle drove slowly and cautiously in autonomous mode. An attendant manually steered the vehicle around a utility truck that blocked part of the road.

    “I didn’t feel unsafe,” said Dominic Lucchesi, an Oakland resident who was among the first to ride the autonomous shuttle. “I thought that it made some abrupt stops, but otherwise I felt like I was riding any other bus for the most part.”

    The boxy shuttle, which can sit up to 10 passengers, will operate 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. every day and circle the Loop every 20 minutes. The city has two shuttles — one can charge while the other ferries passengers.

    The autonomous shuttle pilot project was launched after the California Public Utilities Commission voted to allow two rival robotaxi companies, Cruise and Waymo, to offer around-the-clock passenger service in San Francisco.

    The approval came despite widespread complaints that the driverless taxis make unexpected stops, cause traffic backups and block emergency vehicles. On Wednesday, the city asked the commission to pause the robotaxi expansion.

    Cruise, a subsidiary of General Motors, reported on social media that one of its robotaxis crashed into a city fire truck Thursday night, sending one passenger to the hospital.

    Experts don’t anticipate the same problems with driverless buses because they’re expected to be staffed with drivers or attendants for the foreseeable future.

    “Trained operators are going to be required even as we increase automation,” said Nikolas Martelaro, autonomous-vehicle researcher at Carnegie Mellon University. “So the question there may not be how worried should someone be about losing their job versus what should they be thinking about the potential training that’s required.”

    Autonomous driving technology could make buses safer, but requiring drivers or attendants on-board could undermine one of their perceived advantages: reduced labor costs.

    “We still have to find a market for them,” said Art Guzzetti, vice president at the American Public Transportation Association. “We’re doing it to make the trip better, more efficient, not to take the worker’s job.”

    Source link

  • While a criminal case against a Tesla driver ends, legal and ethical questions on Autopilot endure

    While a criminal case against a Tesla driver ends, legal and ethical questions on Autopilot endure

    LOS ANGELES — A criminal prosecution against a Tesla driver in Los Angeles County will end on Tuesday, the final step of a case believed to be the first time in the U.S. prosecutors brought felony charges against a motorist who was using a partially automated driving system.

    But the conclusion of driver Kevin Aziz Riad’s case is offering little solace to Lorena Ochoa, whose spouse was one of two people killed in the 2019 crash in a Los Angeles suburb. She believes both Tesla and Aziz Riad, who received probation as punishment, should face harsher consequences.

    Aziz Riad faces a restitution hearing on Tuesday, where a judge will determine how much money he owes the families of Gilberto Alcazar Lopez and Maria Guadalupe Nieves-Lopez. Aziz Riad was using Autopilot, and the case has raised legal and ethical questions about the technology, particularly as Tesla sales grow and more automakers equip cars with similar systems.

    The victims’ families have separately filed civil lawsuits against Aziz Riad and Tesla that are ongoing.

    Tesla says on its website that its cars require human supervision and are not autonomous, but critics say the electric vehicle maker continues a misleading marketing campaign implying that vehicles using Autopilot can drive themselves.

    “They make cars that they know cause accidents, and they don’t care,” said Ochoa, Alcazar Lopez’s spouse, in an interview in Spanish last week. “Families are broken, lives are lost and they don’t care.”

    Authorities say Aziz Riad, a limousine service driver, was at the wheel of a Tesla Model S that was moving at 74 mph (119 kph) when it left a freeway and ran a red light on a local street in Gardena, California, on Dec. 29, 2019. The Tesla struck a Honda Civic at an intersection, and Alcazar Lopez and Nieves-Lopez died at the scene.

    Tesla says Autopilot technology can keep a car in its lane, maintain some distance from cars in front of it and make lane changes. But Autopilot has had trouble with stopping for emergency vehicles parked on roads, and it’s also under investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for braking without driver input.

    U.S. safety regulators are probing Tesla’s partially automated driving systems in at least 35 crashes and 17 deaths nationwide since 2016. The automaker did not respond to requests for comment.

    Experts saw the felony charges for the deaths of Alcazar Lopez and Nieves-Lopez as a warning for drivers who use systems like Tesla’s Autopilot that they cannot rely on them to control vehicles and could face prosecution if a tragedy occurred.

    Aziz Riad, the Tesla driver, pleaded no contest to two counts of vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence. Despite facing more than seven years behind bars, a judge sentenced him to probation in June.

    Ochoa blames both Aziz Riad and Tesla for her spouse’s death. She had hoped Aziz Riad would go to prison and feels probation was too lenient.

    “How can there be justice if the person who took the life of the father of my children, of my husband, is free and is not paying for the mistake he made?” she said. “It is not fair.”

    The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office defended the plea deal in a statement, saying the disposition “was arrived at taking into account all of the evidence and materials presented in the case.”

    The couple had separated but co-parented their three children and remained on good terms. In 2019, Alcazar Lopez was living in Los Angeles with their eldest. He was a good father, Ochoa said, and looked out for his family even though the spouses were apart.

    Alcazar Lopez and Nieves-Lopez had been on their first date when the crash occurred.

    Bryant Walker Smith, a University of South Carolina law professor who follows automated vehicles, says the law has to balance two arguments that are both correct. One is that people should be held accountable for mistakes if they fail to control a two-ton vehicle. Another is that in Aziz Riad’s case, there’s no evidence he intended to kill anyone.

    Arthur Barens, Aziz Riad’s criminal defense lawyer, said he is “comfortable” with probation given his client did not mean to do anything wrong.

    The question of civil liability is even more complex. Is Aziz Riad responsible for the deaths, since he was behind the wheel, or is Tesla?

    It’s possible to argue Tesla engineers should know that people will become too reliant on driver-assist systems and trust them too much, Walker Smith said.

    For years, he and others have said Tesla can do more to make its technology safer. Their suggestions include limiting Autopilot use to freeways, as well as upgrading a driver-monitoring system that currently allows drivers to “check out” while behind the wheel. Walker Smith also wants Tesla’s technology to shut down faster if it determines drivers are not watching the road.

    Similar technology from Ford and General Motors, for instance, monitor drivers with infrared cameras to make sure they’re paying attention. If they don’t, the systems warn the drivers and will turn off. They also confine use of their systems to mostly limited-access freeways and turn them off when they are on city streets, which are more complex and present more dangers.

    Don Slavik, an attorney representing Alcazar Lopez’s family in their lawsuit, said he will argue in court that Tesla has been marketing its cars as being able to drive themselves since at least 2016. Civil attorneys for Aziz Riad and Nieves-Lopez’s family did not respond to inquiries.

    Slavik said he has little hope Tesla will change its behavior or upgrade the technology even if he wins a big judgment for Alcazar Lopez’s family.

    “Maybe not this case, but after they get hit enough times, maybe they’ll make some significant changes,” he said.

    __

    Krisher reported from Detroit. Associated Press Writer Amy Taxin in Orange County, California, contributed.

    Source link

  • In the twilight of the muscle car era, demand for the new 486-horsepower V-8 Ford Mustang is roaring

    In the twilight of the muscle car era, demand for the new 486-horsepower V-8 Ford Mustang is roaring

    DETROIT — New versions of the Mustang muscle car will begin shipping next week and more than two thirds of the orders include the big, 5-liter V-8 engine, Ford said Friday.

    Demand for roaring engines remains strong in an era when Detroit automakers are starting to phase out the rumbling gas burners and transition to electric vehicles in order to meet strict government emissions and fuel economy requirements.

    There are about 13,000 U.S. orders for the 2024 Mustangs, Ford says, which also can be equipped with a four-cylinder turbocharged engine. Of those orders, 67% have the V-8, and more than a quarter of the people seeking that Mustang want the six-speed manual transmission, spokesman Mike Levine says.

    But muscle cars, at least new ones, are on their way out.

    General Motors announced in March that it will stop making the Chevrolet Camaro early next year as a 2024 model. The company wouldn’t rule out a replacement for the Camaro at a future date.

    Stellantis, formerly Fiat Chrysler, will stop making gas versions of the Dodge Challenger and Charger muscle cars by the end of this year. But the company has plans to roll out a battery-powered Charger performance car sometime in 2024.

    Levine wouldn’t say whether this version of the Mustang would be the company’s last gas-powered muscle car. “That remains to be seen,” he said.

    There also could be an electric Mustang sports car in the future. Electric cars, with instant torque and a low center of gravity, often are faster and handle better than internal combustion vehicles.

    People are going for V-8 Mustangs with stick shifts in part because they may be the last of the gas-powered muscle car era, said Guidehouse Insights eMobility analyst Sam Abuelsamid.

    “The most hard-core fans, they’re going to go out and grab one of these because you don’t know when it’s going to end,” he said.

    When a new Mustang comes out, the V-8 order rate is almost always higher than the other available engines, as is the demand for manual transmissions, because fervent Mustang fans are often the first to order, Abuelsamid said.

    “We tend to see more demand from enthusiasts for the V-8 whenever an all-new Mustang is introduced,” Jim Owens, Mustang brand manager, said in a prepared statement.

    The new Mustang, which is on the same underpinnings as the current version, is built at a factory in Flat Rock, Michigan, south of Detroit. Most of the V-8s will produce 486 horsepower, but a Dark Horse version puts out 500.

    Source link

  • Delayed passengers growl after a bear escapes from crate in cargo hold of an Iraqi plane in Dubai

    Delayed passengers growl after a bear escapes from crate in cargo hold of an Iraqi plane in Dubai

    An Iraqi airline says it’s not to blame for a bear’s escape from a crate in the cargo hold of one of its planes in Dubai

    ByQASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA and ABDULRAHMAN ZEYAD Associated Press

    This is a locator map for Iraq with its capital, Baghdad. (AP Photo)

    The Associated Press

    BAGHDAD — Iraq’s prime minister has ordered an investigation into how a bear escaped from its crate in the cargo hold of an Iraqi aircraft as it was due to depart from Dubai airport, leaving passengers disgruntled over the delay and causing a stir on social media.

    Iraqi Airways said it wasn’t to blame for the bear’s escape and that the aircraft’s crew worked with authorities in the United Arab Emirates, which dispatched specialists to sedate the animal and remove it from the plane.

    A video clip circulating on social media showed the plane’s captain apologizing to passengers for Friday’s takeoff delay because of the bear’s escape from its crate in the cargo hold.

    Iraqi Airways said Saturday that procedures to transport the bear were carried out in accordance with the law and with procedures and standards approved by the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

    The airline said the bear was being flown from Baghdad to Dubai. But a person speaking on the video clip making the social media rounds suggested otherwise, saying the aircraft was an hour late for its trip to Baghdad and that passengers were being asked to disembark until the issue was resolved.

    Dubai International Airport, the world’s busiest for international travel, declined to comment.

    An Iraqi Airways official confirmed to The Associated Press on Sunday that the bear was, in fact, being transported to the Iraqi capital. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he’s not authorized to speak about the matter publicly, declined to name the animal’s owner.

    Keeping predatory animals as pets in Iraq — especially in Baghdad — has become popular among the wealthy.

    Authorities have struggled to enforce legal provisions to protect wild animals. Baghdad’s police has previously called on citizens to assist authorities in preventing such animals from being let loose on the city’s streets or ending up as exotic meals in restaurant by reporting such cases.

    Source link

  • The EPA’s ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism

    The EPA’s ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism

    DETROIT — The U.S. government’s most ambitious plan ever to slash planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles faces skepticism both about how realistic it is and whether it goes far enough.

    The Environmental Protection Agency in April announced new strict emissions limits that the agency says are vital to slowing climate change as people around the globe endure record-high temperatures, raging wildfires and intense storms.

    The EPA says the industry could meet the limits if 67% of new-vehicle sales are electric by 2032, a pace the auto industry calls unrealistic. However, the new rule would not require automakers to boost electric vehicle sales directly. Instead, it sets emissions limits and allows automakers to choose how to meet them.

    Even if the industry boosts EV sales to the level the EPA recommends, any reduction in pollution could prove more modest than the agency expects. The Associated Press has estimated that nearly 80% of vehicles being driven in the U.S. — more than 200 million — would still run on gasoline or diesel fuel.

    ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SAY IT’S NOT ENOUGH

    Pointing to surging temperatures and smoke from Canadian wildfires that fouled the air over parts of the U.S. this summer, Dan Becker, director of the safe climate transport campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, said: “We need to do a hell of a lot more.”

    He wants the EPA to slash emissions even further.

    Carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere keep rising. Scientists say July will end up being the hottest month on record and likely the warmest human civilization has seen. The Earth is only a few tenths of a degree from the goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

    Though a panel of United Nations scientists said in March that there was still time to prevent the worst harm from climate change, the scientists said the world would need to quickly cut nearly two-thirds of carbon emissions by 2035 to avoid weather that is even more extreme.

    Peter Slowik, a senior EV researcher with the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation, has calculated that to cut emissions enough to reach Paris Agreement goals, the proportion of new electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles sold would have to reach 67% by 2030. The EPA has projected 60% by then.

    “The EPA proposal is a really great start to putting us on a Paris-compatible path,” said Slowik, whose group provides research and analysis to environmental regulators. “But no, it isn’t enough to comply with the Paris accord.”

    The council has calculated that carbon dioxide pollution from passenger vehicles would have to drop to 57 grams per mile by 2030 to reach the Paris goals. The EPA’s preferred regulation would cut those emissions to 102 grams per mile by 2030 and to 82 by 2032.

    In addition, Slowik cautioned, carbon emissions from new gasoline vehicles would have to drop 3.5% each year from 2027 to 2032. The EPA’s preferred regulation doesn’t set reductions for gas vehicles. But fuel economy standards recently proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could.

    WHAT DOES THE EPA SAY?

    The EPA contends its proposal will significantly reduce pollution. It estimates that passenger-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would fall 47% by 2055, when the agency expects most gas-powered vehicles to be gone.

    As the biggest source of pollution in the United States, transportation generates roughly 29% of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. Passenger vehicles are by far the worst transportation polluters, spewing 58% of that sector’s greenhouse gas pollution.

    The EPA also is proposing big reductions from other sources, including heavy trucks, electric power plants and the oil and gas industry.

    Using sales projections from the EPA and industry analysts from 2022 through model year 2032, the AP calculated that Americans will likely buy roughly 60 million EVs. With 284 million passenger vehicles on U.S. roads today, at that pace only about 22% of them would be electric in nine years. Two million are already in use, and vehicles now stay on the road for an average of 12.5 years.

    Dave Cooke, a senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that even with slow vehicle turnover, studies show the EPA’s proposal would be an important step toward a zero-carbon transportation system by 2050. In addition, power plants that fuel EVs, he noted, will be converted to renewable energy such as wind and solar.

    “We know that EVs provide a compounding benefit as we dramatically cut (electric power) grid emissions,” Cooke said.

    His group is among those pushing the EPA for more stringent standards than the agency is pursuing.

    The EPA will consider such comments before adopting a final regulation in March 2024.

    THE AUTO INDUSTRY SAYS THE LIMITS CAN’T BE MET

    The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that represents companies such as General Motors, Ford and Toyota that make most new vehicles sold in the United States, argues the EPA standards are “neither reasonable nor achievable in the time frame covered.”

    The alliance says the agency is underestimating the cost and difficulty of making EV batteries, including short supplies of critical minerals that also are used in laptops, cellphones and other items. Sizable gaps in the charging network for long-distance travel and for people living in apartments pose another obstacle.

    Though automakers continue to downsize engines and produce more efficient transmissions, the alliance says they need to use their limited resources more on producing EVs than on developing more fuel-efficient technology for gas-powered engines.

    ARE ELECTRIC VEHICLES REALLY CLEANER?

    Studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology show that shifting to electric vehicles delivers a 30% to 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over combustion vehicles, depending on how the electricity is derived.

    Jessika Trancik, an MIT professor of energy systems, said electric vehicles are cleaner over their lifetimes, even after taking into account the pollution caused by the mining of metals for batteries. The university has a website that lists auto emissions by vehicle.

    Trancik believes that once EV sales accelerate, more people will want them, and the percentages could actually exceed EPA predictions. Sales of EVs, she noted, are growing far faster in many other countries.

    “You often see exponential growth,” she said.

    Source link

  • The EPA’s ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism

    The EPA’s ambitious plan to cut auto emissions to slow climate change runs into skepticism

    DETROIT — The U.S. government’s most ambitious plan ever to slash planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles faces skepticism both about how realistic it is and whether it goes far enough.

    The Environmental Protection Agency in April announced new strict emissions limits that the agency says are vital to slowing climate change as people around the globe endure record-high temperatures, raging wildfires and intense storms.

    The EPA says the industry could meet the limits if 67% of new-vehicle sales are electric by 2032, a pace the auto industry calls unrealistic. However, the new rule would not require automakers to boost electric vehicle sales directly. Instead, it sets emissions limits and allows automakers to choose how to meet them.

    Even if the industry boosts EV sales to the level the EPA recommends, any reduction in pollution could prove more modest than the agency expects. The Associated Press has estimated that nearly 80% of vehicles being driven in the U.S. — more than 200 million — would still run on gasoline or diesel fuel.

    ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS SAY IT’S NOT ENOUGH

    Pointing to surging temperatures and smoke from Canadian wildfires that fouled the air over parts of the U.S. this summer, Dan Becker, director of the safe climate transport campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, said: “We need to do a hell of a lot more.”

    He wants the EPA to slash emissions even further.

    Carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atmosphere keep rising. Scientists say July will end up being the hottest month on record and likely the warmest human civilization has seen. The Earth is only a few tenths of a degree from the goal set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.

    Though a panel of United Nations scientists said in March that there was still time to prevent the worst harm from climate change, the scientists said the world would need to quickly cut nearly two-thirds of carbon emissions by 2035 to avoid weather that is even more extreme.

    Peter Slowik, a senior EV researcher with the nonprofit International Council on Clean Transportation, has calculated that to cut emissions enough to reach Paris Agreement goals, the proportion of new electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles sold would have to reach 67% by 2030. The EPA has projected 60% by then.

    “The EPA proposal is a really great start to putting us on a Paris-compatible path,” said Slowik, whose group provides research and analysis to environmental regulators. “But no, it isn’t enough to comply with the Paris accord.”

    The council has calculated that carbon dioxide pollution from passenger vehicles would have to drop to 57 grams per mile by 2030 to reach the Paris goals. The EPA’s preferred regulation would cut those emissions to 102 grams per mile by 2030 and to 82 by 2032.

    In addition, Slowik cautioned, carbon emissions from new gasoline vehicles would have to drop 3.5% each year from 2027 to 2032. The EPA’s preferred regulation doesn’t set reductions for gas vehicles. But fuel economy standards recently proposed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could.

    WHAT DOES THE EPA SAY?

    The EPA contends its proposal will significantly reduce pollution. It estimates that passenger-vehicle carbon dioxide emissions would fall 47% by 2055, when the agency expects most gas-powered vehicles to be gone.

    As the biggest source of pollution in the United States, transportation generates roughly 29% of heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. Passenger vehicles are by far the worst transportation polluters, spewing 58% of that sector’s greenhouse gas pollution.

    The EPA also is proposing big reductions from other sources, including heavy trucks, electric power plants and the oil and gas industry.

    Using sales projections from the EPA and industry analysts from 2022 through model year 2032, the AP calculated that Americans will likely buy roughly 60 million EVs. With 284 million passenger vehicles on U.S. roads today, at that pace only about 22% of them would be electric in nine years. Two million are already in use, and vehicles now stay on the road for an average of 12.5 years.

    Dave Cooke, a senior vehicles analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists, said that even with slow vehicle turnover, studies show the EPA’s proposal would be an important step toward a zero-carbon transportation system by 2050. In addition, power plants that fuel EVs, he noted, will be converted to renewable energy such as wind and solar.

    “We know that EVs provide a compounding benefit as we dramatically cut (electric power) grid emissions,” Cooke said.

    His group is among those pushing the EPA for more stringent standards than the agency is pursuing.

    The EPA will consider such comments before adopting a final regulation in March 2024.

    THE AUTO INDUSTRY SAYS THE LIMITS CAN’T BE MET

    The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, a trade group that represents companies such as General Motors, Ford and Toyota that make most new vehicles sold in the United States, argues the EPA standards are “neither reasonable nor achievable in the time frame covered.”

    The alliance says the agency is underestimating the cost and difficulty of making EV batteries, including short supplies of critical minerals that also are used in laptops, cellphones and other items. Sizable gaps in the charging network for long-distance travel and for people living in apartments pose another obstacle.

    Though automakers continue to downsize engines and produce more efficient transmissions, the alliance says they need to use their limited resources more on producing EVs than on developing more fuel-efficient technology for gas-powered engines.

    ARE ELECTRIC VEHICLES REALLY CLEANER?

    Studies by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology show that shifting to electric vehicles delivers a 30% to 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions over combustion vehicles, depending on how the electricity is derived.

    Jessika Trancik, an MIT professor of energy systems, said electric vehicles are cleaner over their lifetimes, even after taking into account the pollution caused by the mining of metals for batteries. The university has a website that lists auto emissions by vehicle.

    Trancik believes that once EV sales accelerate, more people will want them, and the percentages could actually exceed EPA predictions. Sales of EVs, she noted, are growing far faster in many other countries.

    “You often see exponential growth,” she said.

    Source link

  • Recalling a wild ride with a robotaxi named Peaches as regulators mull San Francisco expansion plan

    Recalling a wild ride with a robotaxi named Peaches as regulators mull San Francisco expansion plan

    SAN FRANCISCO — I won’t forget the first time I took a ride in a car without anyone sitting in the driver’s seat.

    It happened one night last September when a Chevy Bolt named Peaches picked me up outside a San Francisco bar. Our ensuing half-hour ride together produced, at first, a titillating display of technology’s promise. Then an unexpected twist made me worry that the encounter had turned into a mistake I would regret.

    Peaches and I were getting along great for most of our time together, as the car deftly navigated through hilly San Francisco streets similar to those Steve McQueen careened through during the famous chase scene in the 1968 film “Bullitt.” Unlike McQueen, Peaches never exceeded 30 mph (48 kph) because of restrictions imposed by state regulators on a ride-hailing service operated by Cruise, a General Motors subsidiary, since it won approval to transport fare-paying passengers last year.

    It was all going so smoothly that I was starting to buy into the vision of Cruise and Waymo, a self-driving car pioneer spun off from a Google project that is also trying launch a ride-hailing service in San Francisco.

    The theory fueling the ambition is that driverless cars will be safer than vehicles operated by frequently distracted and occasionally intoxicated humans — and, in the case of robotaxis, be less expensive and more convenient to ride in than automobiles that require a human behind the wheel.

    The concept does sound good. And the technology to pull it off is advancing steadily, just like other artificial intelligence applications such as chatbots that can write college-level essays and produce impressive pieces of art within seconds.

    But when something goes awry, as it did near the end of my encounter with Peaches, that sense of astonishment and delight can evaporate very quickly.

    And even though none of the Cruise and Waymo driverless vehicles have been involved in major accidents in San Francisco, the robotaxis have been malfunctioning frequently enough to have triggered an intense resistance to proposed expansion that would allow them to operate around-the-clock throughout the city.

    After postponing two previous votes on the proposed expansion in June and July amid the robotaxi backlash, the California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to tackle the thorny issue Thursday — unless information presented at a Monday status conference prompts another delay.

    DESTINATION: UNCERTAIN

    My September ride with Peaches didn’t end well.

    As we approached my designated drop-off location near the Fairmont Hotel — where presidents have stayed and the late Tony Bennett first sang “I Left My Heart In San Francisco” — Peaches advised me to gather my belongings and prepare to get out of the car.

    While I grabbed my bag as the robotaxi appeared to be pulling over to the curb, it suddenly sped up and inexplicably started driving away in the opposite direction.

    After seeing the dashboard display screen indicating I was now somehow an estimated 20 minutes away from my destination, I grew frantic. I asked Peaches what was going on. There was no response, so I used a feature on Cruise’s ride-hailing center that enables a passenger to contact a person at a call center.

    The Cruise representative confirmed that Peaches had gotten confused, apologized and assured me the robotaxi had been reprogrammed to get me to my original destination.

    Indeed, the car did seem to be headed back to where I requested. Then it started doing the old same thing again, making me wonder whether Peaches might like me a little too much to let me go. Feeling more like I was stuck on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride at Disneyland than riding in an artificially intelligent car, I contacted Cruise’s call center. Peaches, they told me apologetically, seemed to be malfunctioning.

    Suddenly, Peaches came to a halt right in the middle of the street. I bolted from the Bolt, marooned several blocks from my destination shortly before 10 p.m.

    Fortunately, I know my way around San Francisco, so I walked the rest of the way to where I needed to be. But what if this had happened to tourists? Would they know where to go? How would they feel being forced to walk around a strange neighborhood in a big city late at night?

    MAYBE DON’T STOP HERE

    When I discussed the incident during an interview for a story about robotaxis, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt apologized and assured me the problem had been fixed. Sure enough, I was picked up and dropped off at my designated destinations in rides I took in two different Cruise robotaxis — one named Cherry and the other Hollandaise — on a mid-February night in San Francisco.

    Yet other problems apparently persist.

    In the first five months of this year alone, city transportation officials said they logged reports of more than 240 incidents in which a Cruise or Waymo vehicle may have created a safety hazard. The transportation officials believe the actual number of problems may be even higher because state regulators don’t currently require Cruise or Waymo to disclose every incident involving erratic behavior in their respective fleets.

    Cruise and Waymo contend that the problems cited by San Francisco officials have been overblown and are stepping up their efforts to counter the criticism.

    In full-page ads that recently ran in several newspapers, Cruise declared, “Humans are terrible drivers,” while trumpeting its robotaxis as a safer alternative. And Waymo’s co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana recently wrote an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle asserting that the company’s technology is “mature enough to make a meaningful impact on road safety.”

    As for my night with Peaches? Whenever I reminisce about the ride, I am also reminded of another trip to New York that I took two days after the robotaxi couldn’t deliver me to my destination.

    After I landed at JFK Airport, I hopped into an old-fashioned taxi driven by a fellow named Talid. I remember having a pleasant conversation with Talid, who chuckled as I recounted what happened with Peaches. At the end of the ride, Talid dropped me off at Grand Central Terminal, as I had requested. Then his cab drove off — with, of course, a human still behind the wheel.

    Source link

  • Recalling a wild ride with a robotaxi named Peaches as regulators mull San Francisco expansion plan

    Recalling a wild ride with a robotaxi named Peaches as regulators mull San Francisco expansion plan

    SAN FRANCISCO — I won’t forget the first time I took a ride in a car without anyone sitting in the driver’s seat.

    It happened one night last September when a Chevy Bolt named Peaches picked me up outside a San Francisco bar. Our ensuing half-hour ride together produced, at first, a titillating display of technology’s promise. Then an unexpected twist made me worry that the encounter had turned into a mistake I would regret.

    Peaches and I were getting along great for most of our time together, as the car deftly navigated through hilly San Francisco streets similar to those Steve McQueen careened through during the famous chase scene in the 1968 film “Bullitt.” Unlike McQueen, Peaches never exceeded 30 mph (48 kph) because of restrictions imposed by state regulators on a ride-hailing service operated by Cruise, a General Motors subsidiary, since it won approval to transport fare-paying passengers last year.

    It was all going so smoothly that I was starting to buy into the vision of Cruise and Waymo, a self-driving car pioneer spun off from a Google project that is also trying launch a ride-hailing service in San Francisco.

    The theory fueling the ambition is that driverless cars will be safer than vehicles operated by frequently distracted and occasionally intoxicated humans — and, in the case of robotaxis, be less expensive and more convenient to ride in than automobiles that require a human behind the wheel.

    The concept does sound good. And the technology to pull it off is advancing steadily, just like other artificial intelligence applications such as chatbots that can write college-level essays and produce impressive pieces of art within seconds.

    But when something goes awry, as it did near the end of my encounter with Peaches, that sense of astonishment and delight can evaporate very quickly.

    And even though none of the Cruise and Waymo driverless vehicles have been involved in major accidents in San Francisco, the robotaxis have been malfunctioning frequently enough to have triggered an intense resistance to proposed expansion that would allow them to operate around-the-clock throughout the city.

    After postponing two previous votes on the proposed expansion in June and July amid the robotaxi backlash, the California Public Utilities Commission is scheduled to tackle the thorny issue Thursday — unless information presented at a Monday status conference prompts another delay.

    DESTINATION: UNCERTAIN

    My September ride with Peaches didn’t end well.

    As we approached my designated drop-off location near the Fairmont Hotel — where presidents have stayed and the late Tony Bennett first sang “I Left My Heart In San Francisco” — Peaches advised me to gather my belongings and prepare to get out of the car.

    While I grabbed my bag as the robotaxi appeared to be pulling over to the curb, it suddenly sped up and inexplicably started driving away in the opposite direction.

    After seeing the dashboard display screen indicating I was now somehow an estimated 20 minutes away from my destination, I grew frantic. I asked Peaches what was going on. There was no response, so I used a feature on Cruise’s ride-hailing center that enables a passenger to contact a person at a call center.

    The Cruise representative confirmed that Peaches had gotten confused, apologized and assured me the robotaxi had been reprogrammed to get me to my original destination.

    Indeed, the car did seem to be headed back to where I requested. Then it started doing the old same thing again, making me wonder whether Peaches might like me a little too much to let me go. Feeling more like I was stuck on Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride at Disneyland than riding in an artificially intelligent car, I contacted Cruise’s call center. Peaches, they told me apologetically, seemed to be malfunctioning.

    Suddenly, Peaches came to a halt right in the middle of the street. I bolted from the Bolt, marooned several blocks from my destination shortly before 10 p.m.

    Fortunately, I know my way around San Francisco, so I walked the rest of the way to where I needed to be. But what if this had happened to tourists? Would they know where to go? How would they feel being forced to walk around a strange neighborhood in a big city late at night?

    MAYBE DON’T STOP HERE

    When I discussed the incident during an interview for a story about robotaxis, Cruise CEO Kyle Vogt apologized and assured me the problem had been fixed. Sure enough, I was picked up and dropped off at my designated destinations in rides I took in two different Cruise robotaxis — one named Cherry and the other Hollandaise — on a mid-February night in San Francisco.

    Yet other problems apparently persist.

    In the first five months of this year alone, city transportation officials said they logged reports of more than 240 incidents in which a Cruise or Waymo vehicle may have created a safety hazard. The transportation officials believe the actual number of problems may be even higher because state regulators don’t currently require Cruise or Waymo to disclose every incident involving erratic behavior in their respective fleets.

    Cruise and Waymo contend that the problems cited by San Francisco officials have been overblown and are stepping up their efforts to counter the criticism.

    In full-page ads that recently ran in several newspapers, Cruise declared, “Humans are terrible drivers,” while trumpeting its robotaxis as a safer alternative. And Waymo’s co-CEO Tekedra Mawakana recently wrote an opinion piece in the San Francisco Chronicle asserting that the company’s technology is “mature enough to make a meaningful impact on road safety.”

    As for my night with Peaches? Whenever I reminisce about the ride, I am also reminded of another trip to New York that I took two days after the robotaxi couldn’t deliver me to my destination.

    After I landed at JFK Airport, I hopped into an old-fashioned taxi driven by a fellow named Talid. I remember having a pleasant conversation with Talid, who chuckled as I recounted what happened with Peaches. At the end of the ride, Talid dropped me off at Grand Central Terminal, as I had requested. Then his cab drove off — with, of course, a human still behind the wheel.

    Source link

  • Lost in translation: How New Zealand’s plan for bilingual road signs took an unexpected turn | CNN

    Lost in translation: How New Zealand’s plan for bilingual road signs took an unexpected turn | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    It was meant to be an inclusive gesture to New Zealand’s indigenous Maori community. But plans to introduce bilingual road signs featuring both the English and te reo Maori languages have sparked a divisive, racially charged debate ahead of the country’s looming general election.

    New Zealand – or Aotearoa as it is known to the Maori – recently hosted a public consultation on whether to include te reo Maori on 94 types of road signs, including for place names, speed limits, warnings and expressway advisories.

    The idea, according to the national Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency (whose name means “traveling together as one”), is to promote “cultural understanding and social cohesion” with the Maori community, which makes up almost a fifth of New Zealand’s population of 5.15 million.

    But the idea hasn’t gone down well with right-wing opposition parties, who have attacked the signs claiming they will jeopardize road safety. An extra language will mean less space for the English words, the theory goes, and smaller type will be harder for motorists to read.

    “Signs need to be clear. We all speak English, and they should be in English,” the main opposition National Party’s spokesman Simeon Brown told reporters, insisting the signs could confuse people “traveling at speed.”

    That claim prompted criticism from the ruling Labour Party government, with Prime Minister Chris Hipkins accusing the opposition of thinly disguised racial politics. “I’m not entirely sure where they are going with this unless it’s just an outright dog whistle,” he said.

    While the National Party has since insisted it is not opposed to bilingual signs “per se” – rather, it says, it wants the government to prioritize other things like fixing potholes and improving traffic networks – the issues has sparked heated debate in the run up to the vote in October where Labour are facing a tough fight to hold onto power.

    For many in the Maori community, the plan is as much about signposting and preserving their cultural heritage as it is about understanding road directions.

    Slightly less than a quarter of New Zealand’s 892,200 Maori speak te reo Maori as one of their first languages, according to the latest government data.

    While opponents use this as an argument against the signs – pointing out that 95% of New Zealanders speak English according to the most recent census in 2018 – supporters use the same data as an argument in favor.

    Part of the reason that te reo Maori is not so widely spoken is that back in New Zealand’s colonial era there were active efforts to stamp it out. The Native Schools Act 1867 required schools to teach in English where possible and children were often physically punished for speaking te reo Maori.

    That led to a decline in the language that the New Zealand government of today is trying to reverse. It wants to preserve the language as part of the country’s cultural heritage and sees bilingual signs as one way of encouraging its use.

    As Maori language expert Awanui Te Huia, from the Victoria University of Wellington, put it: “Having bicultural signage allows us to see our language as part of our daily surroundings and contributes to the development of a bilingual national identity.”

    To this end the government in 2018 launched a five-year plan aimed at revitalizing the language. Five years ago just 24% of New Zealanders were able to speak “more than a few words or phrases” of te reo Maori; by 2021 that had risen to 30%.

    Over the same period, support for bilingual signs rose from 51% to 56%.

    The longer term vision is that by 2040, 85% of New Zealanders will value te reo Maori as a key part of their nationality; 1 million people will be able to speak the basics, and that 150,000 Maori ages 15 or above will use it as much as English.

    For Professor Tania Ka’ai, director of The International Centre for Language Revitalisation at Auckland University of Technology, bilingual signs are at least a move in the right direction.

    “I would describe it as a ‘work in progress’ because the language is still at risk of dying and it does not deserve to die – no language does,” Ka’ai said.

    While the transport agency acknowledges some people have “safety concerns” over the plan, it points to the example of Wales in the United Kingdom, where it says signs featuring both English and Welsh have managed to “improve safety” by catering to speakers of the two most common local languages.

    It also says the parallel between New Zealand and Wales will be “particularly salient if te reo Maori becomes understood more widely in the future” – as the government is hoping.

    Several other experts have downplayed the suggestion bilingual signs pose a hazard. Even so, the issue is not entirely clear cut.

    Kasem Choocharukul, an engineering scholar who specializes in traffic behavior, told CNN there is no evidence that bilingual road signs in themselves negatively impact a driver’s comprehension.

    However, design and placement of road signs, as well as the languages and the context in which they are used, have to be treated with care, said Kasem, associate dean of the engineering faculty of Chulalongkorn University in Thailand.

    Research by the University of Leeds suggests road signs consisting of four lines, or more, are likely to slow drivers’ response time significantly.

    Kasem said that in cases where signs featured multiple languages all based on the same alphabet – for instance, both Welsh and English are based on the Latin alphabet – greater care was needed to differentiate them, such as by using different colors or font sizes.

    “The primary objective of these standards is to guarantee that all road signs are unambiguous, uniform, and legible to all,” he said.

    Essentially, poor design can be dangerous, not multiple languages, if done badly.

    A bilingual traffic sign on the A465 in Tredegar, Wales.

    The example of Wales – situated more than 10,000 miles away from New Zealand – isn’t as random as it may seem.

    Commentators say there are a host of uncomfortable parallels between the fortunes of te reo Maori and Welsh, which was also once in danger of dying out but has since witnessed a resurgence.

    At the same time as 19th century European settlers in New Zealand were punishing students for speaking te reo Maori, the British government was actively discouraging the use of the Welsh language, or Cymraeg, in the wake of widespread social unrest.

    In 1847 (20 years before New Zealand’s Native Schools Act) a British government report into Welsh linked the language to stupidity, sexual promiscuity and unruly behavior, prompting a drive to remove the language from local schools.

    This led to the notorious punishment known as the Welsh Nots. These were planks of wood with the initials W.N. on them that would be hung around the necks of students caught speaking the language in school.

    The turning point for Welsh came a century later, following a series of civil disobedience campaigns by the Welsh Language Society in the 1960s. One of these campaigns involved activists defacing and removing English-only signs on streets and roads. Bilingual road signs began to spring up.

    Three decades later, and the British Parliament was actively encouraging the use of Welsh.

    In 1993, it passed the Welsh Language Act to ensure the language shares the same status as English during day-to-day business in Wales. The language is now spoken by more than 900,000 people in Wales, out of a population of more than 3 million.

    James Griffiths, author of “Speak Not: Empire, Identity and the Politics of Language” and a former CNN journalist, said Wales was a prime example of how sound policies could revive a native language, but he noted that, as in New Zealand, there had been resistance from some quarters.

    “I think for a lot of people, if they speak the language of the majority, they don’t appreciate the type of recognition and representation of having it on road signs,” he said.

    Across the Irish Sea, bilingual signs bearing both Irish Gaelic and English have existed in the Republic of Ireland dating back to the start of the 20th century.

    Other commentators draw parallels to how the US state of Hawaii has used road signs to encourage use of Olelo Hawai’i which, like te reo Maori, is a Polynesian language.

    Before the passing of the Hawaii State Constitutional Convention in 1978, which made Hawaiian an official language of the the state, there had been concerns it might go extinct.

    In the 1980s, teaching of Hawaiian in schools began to pick up momentum and parents began making greater efforts to pass the language on to later generations, said Puakea Nogelmeier, professor emeritus of Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawaii.

    This momentum continues to build to this day, with Hawaii’s Department of Transportation last year moving to introduce diacritical markings such as the okina and kahako – dots and lines that indicate glottal stops or longer vowels – to its road signs to help non-native Hawaiian speakers grasp correct pronunciations.

    According to a local government survey in 2016, about 18,000 residents now speak Hawaiian at home in a state with a population of more than 1.4 million.

    But Nogelmeier says that while it has become more common to hear conversations conducted in Olelo Hawai’i, the battle to revive the language is far from over.

    Unlike in New Zealand, where the Maori people reached an agreement with the New Zealand government to preserve te reo Maori under the Maori Language Act 2016, he says the movement in Hawaii is driven primarily by the community, making the cause “more decorative than functional” and akin to “a bit of a hobby.”

    Nogelmeier also says that efforts in Hawaii are largely limited to using Olelo Hawai’i for place names, rather than more complicated linguistic uses.

    He should know: On Hawaiian buses, it is Nogelmeier’s voice that calls out the names of stops in the local language.

    Using indigenous place names also allows outsiders to have a better understanding of how to pronounce words and boost tourism.

    Both Wales and New Zealand have some famous tongue-twisters for those unfamiliar with the local language.

    Llanfairpwllgwyngyll – or to give it its full title Llanfair-pwllgwyngyll-gogery-chwyrn-drobwll-llan-tysilio-gogo-goch – is a little village on the Welsh island of Anglesey and lays claim to being the longest town name in Europe.

    That however it is dwarfed by New Zealand’s own Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu, a hill near Hawke’s Bay which prides itself as the world’s longest place name.

    With New Zealand having wrapped up its public consultation on the signs at the end of June, one other challenge remains should the plan go ahead: ensuring there aren’t any translation bloopers.

    One road sign in Wales made national headlines in 2008 when local council officials sought a translation for a road sign that was meant to say: “No entry for heavy goods vehicles. Residential site only.”

    Their mistake was to email the in-house translation service and not scrutinize its reply too closely.

    Officials requested a sign that read: “Nid wyf yn y swyddfa ar hyn o bryd. Anfonwch unrhyw waith i’w gyfieithy.”

    Only later did they realize that is the Welsh for: “I am not in the office at the moment. Send any work to be translated.”

    Source link

  • Tesla recalls almost 3,500 Model Y cars for loose bolts | CNN Business

    Tesla recalls almost 3,500 Model Y cars for loose bolts | CNN Business


    New York
    CNN
     — 

    Tesla is recalling 3,470 2022-2023 Model Y cars due to bolts in the second-row seat back frames not being secured properly.

    An estimated 4% of cars are affected, a recall report submitted in late February said.

    The loose bolts could cause the seat belts to not work properly in a crash, “which may increase the risk of an injury for occupants seated in affected second-row seating positions,” the National Highway Traffic Administration said.

    On Model Y vehicles, the second-row driver- and passenger-side seat back frames are secured with four bolts per seat back. But during production for certain Model Y cars, one or more of the bolts securing the seat back frames to the lower seat frame “may not have been torqued to specifications.”

    Owners can tell if their car is affected by seeing if their second-row seat back frame folds improperly or if it’s loose and rattles when driving.

    Tesla found five warranty claims regarding the bolts since last December, but is not aware of any injuries or deaths due to it.

    A driver in Fremont, California, found a faulty seat back bolt last December, triggering a Tesla investigation and risk assessment which ended February 17. A recall determination was made on the same day.

    Tesla will inspect the bolts and tighten them if necessary for free of charge, and owner notification letters will be mailed.

    The recall was filed the same month Tesla recalled all 363,000 US vehicles with the “Full Self Driving” driver assist software due to safety risks, a significantly larger recall, which was a blow to the automaker’s business model.

    The NHTSA said, based on its analysis, Tesla’s “Full Self Driving” feature “led to an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety based on insufficient adherence to traffic safety laws.” And it warned the feature could violate traffic laws at some intersections “before some drivers may intervene.”

    “The FSD Beta system may allow the vehicle to act unsafe around intersections, such as traveling straight through an intersection while in a turn-only lane, entering a stop sign-controlled intersection without coming to a complete stop, or proceeding into an intersection during a steady yellow traffic signal without due caution,” said the recall notice, posted on NHTSA’s website.

    Tesla will attempt to fix the feature, which costs $15,000, through an over-the-air software update, the notice added.

    Source link

  • World’s biggest plane flies again in Microsoft Flight Simulator | CNN

    World’s biggest plane flies again in Microsoft Flight Simulator | CNN

    Editor’s Note: Sign up for Unlocking the World, CNN Travel’s weekly newsletter. Get news about destinations opening and closing, inspiration for future adventures, plus the latest in aviation, food and drink, where to stay and other travel developments.



    CNN
     — 

    A year after it was destroyed during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Antonov AN-225 – the world’s biggest commercial plane – has taken flight once again in the Microsoft Flight Simulator program.

    The game has already resurrected lots of historical aircraft in its virtual skies, but this one’s a little special. All proceeds from the $19.99 add-on go toward the Antonov Company’s real-life efforts to reconstruct the mighty beast known as “Mriya” (Ukrainian for “dream”).

    The massive six-engine craft – some 275 feet, 7 inches in length – was built in the 1980s to carry the Soviet space shuttle and was the only one of its kind ever completed.

    Mriya’s next role was as the world’s largest cargo transporter, boasting twice the hold capacity of a Boeing 747 jumbo jet. Its wingspan was 290 feet, the longest of any fully operational aircraft, and with a maximum payload weight of 250 tonnes, it remains the heaviest aircraft ever built.

    The Antonov AN-225 was destroyed at its base in Hostomel, near Kyiv, in February 2022, but in November last year its manufacturers confirmed that the rebuilding project had begun. Antonov estimated that it would need more than €500 million ($532 million) to get it back in the air.

    “The process of rebuilding ‘Mriya’ is considered as an international project, with the participation of aviation enterprises of different countries of the world,” the Antonov Company told CNN via email at the time.

    “The possibility of attracting funding from various sources is being considered and proposals from many organizations that are ready to join the project are being reviewed.”

    The Microsoft Flight Simulator version of the Antonov AN-225 Mriya comes in six liveries, including classic Antonov Airlines designs and an Xbox Aviators Club one.

    The add-on is available now in the Microsoft Flight Simulator in-game marketplace on PC for $19.99 and will be available for Xbox Series X|S and on Xbox Cloud Gaming starting in late March.

    The much-loved flight simulator game celebrated its 40th anniversary in November 2022, having gone through a major reboot in 2020 when it returned with hyper-realistic scenery, digitally distilled from satellite imagery.

    The An-225 is powered by six turbo engines, as seen in this gameplay.

    In-game pilots can explore the world, flying over a range of 1.5 billion buildings, two million cities, and stopping in at more than 37,000 airports. That’s in real-world conditions too, day or night: the program features live real-time weather including wind speed and direction, temperature, lighting, humidity and rain.

    Individualized instrument guidance and checklists are available for the wide variety of aircraft pilots can test their skills in, from light aircraft to commercial jets.

    Mriya fans can also support the rebuild efforts by building their own models of the iconic craft. Ukrainian startup Metal Time is selling working mechanical design kits of the AN-225 for $99.

    Profits go straight to Antonov to fund the reconstruction, as well as the rehousing of Antonov employees whose homes have been destroyed by the Russian invasion, and training for new Ukrainian pilots and aviation engineers.

    Source link

  • 6 dead after a pair of vintage military aircraft collided at a Texas air show | CNN

    6 dead after a pair of vintage military aircraft collided at a Texas air show | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    Six people are dead after two World War II-era military planes collided in midair and crashed at Dallas Executive Airport during an airshow Saturday afternoon, killing all on board, the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s office said Sunday.

    “We can confirm that there are six (fatalities),” a spokesperson for the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s office told CNN in a phone call.

    More than 40 fire rescue units responded to the scene after the two vintage planes – a Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress and a Bell P-63 Kingcobra – went down during the Wings Over Dallas airshow.

    In video footage of the crash that was described by Dallas’ mayor as “heartbreaking,” the planes are seen breaking apart in midair after the collision, then hitting the ground within seconds, before bursting into flames.

    Here are the latest developments as investigators from the National Transportation Safety Board are due to arrive at the scene Sunday.

    The Federal Aviation Administration said the crash took place at around 1:20 p.m. Saturday.

    The Allied Pilots Association – the labor union representing American Airlines pilots – has identified two pilot retirees and former union members among those killed in the collision.

    Former members Terry Barker and Len Root were crew on the B-17 Flying Fortress during the airshow, the APA said on social media.

    “Our hearts go out to their families, friends, and colleagues past and present,” the union said. The APA is offering professional counseling services at their headquarters in Fort Worth following the incident.

    Terry Barker killed in the Dallas Saturday plane crash

    The death of Barker, a former city council member for Keller, Texas, was also announced by Keller Mayor Armin Mizani on Sunday morning in a Facebook post.

    “Keller is grieving as we have come to learn that husband, father, Army veteran, and former Keller City Councilman Terry Barker was one of the victims of the tragic crash at the Dallas Air Show,” Mizani wrote.

    “Terry Barker was beloved by many. He was a friend and someone whose guidance I often sought. Even after retiring from serving on the City Council and flying for American Airlines, his love for community was unmistakable.”

    A 30-year plus veteran of the Civil Air Patrol’s Ohio Wing, Maj. Curtis J. Rowe, was also among those killed in the collision, Col. Pete Bowden, the agency’s commander, said on Sunday.

    Rowe served in several positions throughout his tenure with the Civil Air Patrol, from safety officer to operations officer, and most recently, he was the Ohio Wing maintenance officer, Bowden said. Rowe’s family was notified of his death Saturday evening, the commander added.

    “I reach to find solace in that when great aviators like Curt perish, they do so doing what they loved. Curt touched the lives of thousands of his fellow CAP members, especially the cadets who he flew during orientation flights or taught at Flight Academies and for that, we should be forever grateful,” Bowden wrote in a Facebook post.

    “To a great aviator, colleague, and Auxiliary Airman, farewell,” he said.

    In a Saturday news conference, Hank Coates, president and CEO of the Commemorative Air Force, an organization which preserves and maintains vintage military aircraft, told reporters that the B-17 “normally has a crew of four to five. That was what was on the aircraft,” while the P-63 is a “single-piloted fighter type aircraft.”

    Debris from two planes that crashed during the airshow. The B-17 was one of about 45 complete surviving examples of the model, which was produced by Boeing and other airplane manufacturers during World War II.

    The Commemorative Air Force identified both aircraft as based in Houston.

    No spectators or others on the ground were reported injured, although the debris field from the collision includes the Dallas Executive Airport grounds, Highway 67 and a nearby strip mall.

    The B-17 was part of the collection of the Commemorative Air Force, nicknamed “Texas Raiders,” and had been kept in a hanger in Conroe, Texas, near Houston.

    It was one of about 45 complete surviving examples of the model, only nine of which were airworthy.

    The P-63 was even rarer. Some 14 examples are known to survive, four of which in the US were airworthy, including one owned by the Commemorative Air Force.

    More than 12,000 B-17s were produced by Boeing, Douglas Aircraft and Lockheed between 1936 and 1945, with nearly 5,000 lost during the war, and most of the rest scrapped by the early 1960s. About 3,300 P-63’s were produced by Bell Aircraft between 1943 and 1945, and were principally used by the Soviet Air Force in World War II.

    A frame from a video taken at the airshow shows smoke rising after the crash.

    The FAA was leading the investigation into the air show crash on Saturday, but the NTSB took over the investigation once its team reached the scene, the agency said at a news conference Sunday. The team dispatched by the NTSB consists of technical experts who are regularly sent to plane crash sites to investigate the collision, according to the NTSB.

    “Our team methodically and systematically reviews all evidence and considers all potential factors to determine the probable cause, NTSB member Michael Graham said.

    Investigators have started securing the audio recordings from the air traffic control tower and conducting interviews of the other formation crews and air show operations, according to Graham.

    Neither aircraft was equipped with a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder, often known as the “black box,” he added.

    Investigators surveyed the accident site using both an NTSB drone and a photograph of the scene from the ground to document the area before the wreckage is moved to a secure location, Graham said. A preliminary accident report is expected four to six weeks, but a full investigation may last 12 to 18 months before a final report is released.

    Graham appealed to witnesses saying if anyone has any photos or videos of the incident, they should share them with the NTSB.

    “They’ll actually be very critical since we don’t have any flight data recorder data or cockpit voice recorders or anything like [those devices],” Graham said. “They’ll be very critical to analyze the collision and also tie that in with the aircraft control recordings to determine why the two aircraft collided and to determine, basically, the how and why this accident happened and then eventually, hopefully, maybe make some safety recommendations to prevent it from happening in the future.”

    According to Coates, the individuals flying the aircraft in CAF airshows are volunteers and follow a strict training process. Many of them are airline pilots, retired airline pilots or retired military pilots.

    “The maneuvers that they (the aircraft) were going through were not dynamic at all,” Coates noted. “It was what we call ‘Bombers on Parade.”

    “This is not about the aircraft. It’s just not,” Coates said. “I can tell you the aircraft are great aircraft, they’re safe. They’re very well-maintained. The pilots are very well-trained. So it’s difficult for me to talk about it, because I know all these people, these are family, and they’re good friends.”

    Mayor Johnson said in a tweet after the crash, “As many of you have now seen, we have had a terrible tragedy in our city today during an airshow. Many details remain unknown or unconfirmed at this time.”

    “The videos are heartbreaking. Please, say a prayer for the souls who took to the sky to entertain and educate our families today,” Johnson said in a separate tweet.

    The Wings Over Dallas event, which was scheduled to run through Sunday, has been canceled, according to the organizer’s website.

    Source link

  • The Reddit blackout shows no signs of stopping | CNN Business

    The Reddit blackout shows no signs of stopping | CNN Business



    CNN
     — 

    A widespread Reddit blackout affecting some of the site’s largest communities has continued into its third day with no signs of stopping, as a number of groups on the site vowed to remain closed off indefinitely to protest changes to the platform’s data policies.

    As of Wednesday morning, more than 6,000 subreddits remained inaccessible and in private mode after what began as a two-day voluntary shutdown. The blackout includes popular forums such as r/aww, r/videos and r/music, each of which claims more than 25 million subscribers on the platform.

    The extended protest highlights the commitment of some users, moderators and developers to a long-term standoff with Reddit’s management over a decision to begin charging steep fees for third-party data access to its platform.

    Reddit didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

    The coming fees have provoked broad outrage because of their expected impact on independent apps and moderator tools that have grown up around Reddit and that many users view as a critical resource. Some of the largest third-party apps, such as Apollo and RIF, have said they cannot afford the fees and must shut down, effectively driving users to Reddit’s native app that has been widely panned as slow, buggy and inferior, particularly for users with disabilities.

    In recent days, Reddit has said it would exempt some accessibility apps from the price changes and allow some third-party tools to continue operating through its application programming interface (API). But many moderators have called the announcements little more than a “microscopic” concession.

    In response to allegations that Reddit is imposing the fees and forcing developers to shut down in a “profit-driven” move, Reddit co-founder and CEO Steve Huffman said in a recent Q&A with users that Reddit will “continue to be profit-driven until profits arrive.”

    “Unlike some of the [third-party] apps, we are not profitable,” Huffman said.

    The tensions echo how Twitter, under its new owner Elon Musk, has prompted criticism with plans for its own paywall for data in a bid to develop new revenue sources and to shore up the company’s struggling finances. For Reddit, the stakes are also high to grow revenue, as the company reportedly looks to go public later this year.

    Huffman reportedly dismissed the blackout in a leaked internal memo obtained by The Verge. According to the memo, Huffman described the protest as “among the noisiest we’ve seen” but insisted that “like all blowups on Reddit, this one will pass as well.”

    “We absolutely must ship what we said we would,” Huffman reportedly wrote in the memo, in an apparent reference to the API changes. Huffman also reportedly predicted that some subreddits would end their protest after the initially scheduled two days.

    As of Wednesday morning, many groups participating in the blackout had lifted their self-imposed restrictions. But even as some groups went public once more, others joined the protest.

    Source link