Twelve people, including 11 school children were killed in Telangana's Medak district Thursday morning as Hyderabad-bound train rammed into school bus
Twelve people, including 11 children, were killed and 16 others seriously injured after a train rammed into a school bus at an unmanned railway crossing at Chegunta in Telangana's Medak district on Thursday.
The school bus was carrying 30 children when it collided with a Hyderabad-bound train at a level crossing at Masaipet of Veldurthi Mandal of Medak district.
According to DIG N Suryanarayana, 11 students and the bus driver were killed while 16 children were grievously injured in the accident at the unmanned railway crossing.
Telangana Chief Minister K Chandrasekhara Rao has ordered a probe into the incident.
The mileage claims in auto advertising are often misleading as the manufacturer gives figures of mileage obtained under certain specific conditions, and not based on general use of the vehicle
As a consumer, there are few things more maddening than getting slammed at the pump. The expense of an entire night out has been known to be swallowed up in the time it takes to fill your tank.
One way to lessen that blow, though, is to get yourself behind the wheel of a more fuel-efficient vehicle. But how can you trust that the fuel economy being advertised on TV and radio will be realized on the road?
General fuel economy claims like “great mileage” and “savings at the pump” are deceptive when not backed by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) miles-per-gallon (MPG) numbers, several consumer groups argue in a July 10 letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC):
Anytime an advertising claim or mention is made about fuel economy (i.e., “great mileage,” fuel efficient,” “savings at the pump,” “best in class for fuel efficiency,” etc.) the EPA mpg numbers must be clearly presented. In TV and radio ads, there should also be a clear, audible representation of the mpg.
The letter was sent in response to an FTC request for comments, which is now closed, on how the commission should update its Guide Concerning Fuel Economy Advertising for New Automobiles. Among other things, the FTC sought comment on “whether an advertisement is unfair or deceptive if it provides only one type of mileage (e.g., an advertisement that only provides highway mpg).” The consumer groups responded in the letter:
There are three potential numbers (city, highway, and combined) which could be presented singly, or in various combinations. Presenting just the highway or city numbers (by themselves) would clearly be deceptive because few, if any, consumers drive solely on highways or local streets. While it is unlikely that an advertiser would use just the city mpg as it tends to be the lowest rating, many use just the highway in order to present their vehicle in the best light possible.
The consumer groups, which include the Consumer Federation of America and Consumers Union, assert that in the interest of transparency advertisers should either disclose all ratings (with the combined figure emphasized in the largest font on TV or as the last number mentioned on radio), or the combined only.
(Screenshot from a Lexus commercial in which at :36 mileage claims are supported by EPA ratings in the fine print. The 42 MPG is the combined figure)
The groups also contend in the letter that the FTC only permit the use of standardized EPA ratings in mileage advertising, in order to avoid consumer confusion and allow shoppers to make vehicle-to-vehicle comparisons. Their letter said:
There are many ways to measure a vehicle’s potential gas mileage and, as such, allowing alternative mileage rating systems would substantially increase deceptive advertising related to this important consumer purchase information.
The current debate on advertised fuel economy comes less than two years after an EPA audit found that Hyundai and Kia overstated gas mileage on window stickers on about a third of cars sold over a two-year period. Hyundai later blamed the discrepancy on “procedural errors” at testing operations in Korea.