The low-emission zone only reduced total car traffic by around 5-10%. The reduction in driving to school is much higher than expected.
DrunkEngineer
Most voters don't have an attorney checking their mail-in ballot.
Tesla has notoriously bad rear visibility. And just being a larger vehicle means more blind spots no matter how many cameras/sensors are used to compensate. I've unfortunately been a passenger enough times to know Tesla's collision avoidance stuff doesn't work at all.
The statista link isn't publicly readable, but other sources say Mustang-ev is #3. Ford calls it an SUV. Long-term, the Administration is subsidizing 1-for-1 replacement of the fleet with EV equivalent -- so expect much more SUV/truck in the EV sector if they get their way.
- Heavier vehicles have worse emergency maneuver and braking performance
- Majority of EV's sold in the US are SUV/crossovers which have the same visibility issues
- EV's have ridiculously high rates of acceleration, leading to dangerous driving
Oliver does not support Ukraine in their battle against the ~~Klingons~~ Russians. Captain Kirk would not approve.
It would also help to provide some type of calculation or explanation for how they even came up with that number. Reading the report, the 5% looks made-up.
Nope, the map color is correct for San Francisco.
Joe Lieberman has entered the chat
The questions are choreographed, so it was "asked" by the interviewer because the campaign is putting this idea out there.
This type of collision involving a sober driver and drunk pedestrian is included in the tally of alcohol-related traffic crashes. As a result, it exaggerates the problem of DUI -- which the road lobby likes because they can blame traffic fatalities on the "epidemic" of drunk drivers rather than their dangerous stroad designs.