1 . On Feb. 21, four students were standing on the side of Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu when a driver going 110 miles per hour lost control of his car and it crashed into the parked vehicles.12 people were killed at the scene, including 2 drivers.
This kind of traffic death shouldn’t be called an accident. In Los Angeles, we seem to have accepted constant carnage (屠杀) in our streets in exchange for maximizing driver speed and convenience. The official responses to proven traffic dangers are mere gestures, if even that.
Los Angeles is a uniquely deadly city with a death rate that is four times the national average. Unsurprisingly, it’s also a city that has been designed with one thing in mind: a concept called level of service, which grades streets on how well they serve those in automobiles. To many Angelenos, that makes sense — to design our streets for car traffic, which is the way many get around the city. Unfortunately, we don’t recognize that there’s a trade-off. We can either have streets bettered for free-flowing traffic, or we can design streets for people to move around safely outside of cars.
City leaders consistently choose for the easy but deadly option. In one recent example, a resident asked the city’s Department of Transportation to block drivers from using Cochran Avenue at Venice Boulevard as a cut-through street, as they were speeding through a quiet residential neighbourhood. The department responded by suggesting a “speed awareness campaign” in which neighbours put up yard signs urging drivers to slow down.
People don’t drive based on signage, but they drive on the design of the street. The trunk roads of Los Angeles such as Venice Boulevard all need to be revised so that people are prioritized over cars. This would include narrowing travel lanes (道), building bike lanes, and banning right turns at red lights. These measures would make drivers feel like they’re in a city and not on a highway. A recent John Hopkins study says this would have substantial safety benefits.
With more than 7,500 miles of streets in the city of Los Angeles, they won’t all be rebuilt anytime soon. But with each road construction project, or each crash, we should be revising streets to make them safer for all road users.
The solution to traffic jam isn’t to make more space for cars. It’s to design the streets to be safe enough for alternatives such as biking, walking and mass transit, especially for the 50% of trips daily in Los Angeles that are less than three miles. The solution to protecting people dining outdoors isn’t crash barriers. It’s a street design that forces drivers to go slowly. The problem is carnage in the streets, and we know the solutions.
1. Why should the traffic death in Los Angeles be called “constant carnage”?| A．The traffic accidents happen quite often. |
| B．Too many people are killed in the traffic accidents. |
| C．The drivers’ speeding is to blame for the traffic death. |
| D．City leaders’ consistent choice contributes to the traffic death. |
| A．Balance. | B．Guideline. | C．Conflict. | D．Resolution. |
| A．To widen travel lanes. | B．To add more crosswalks. |
| C．To arrange more traffic police. | D．To punish speeding drivers. |
| A．Drivers first or walkers first? | B．Traffic death or constant carnage? |
| C．More warning signs or safer designs? | D．More narrow lanes or speedy highways? |
2 . It’s a known fact that emissions (排放物) from gas-powered vehicles are harming the atmosphere. In response to this, Porsche, the German sports car company, began producing e-fuels at a pilot plant in Chile last year. Currently, the fuel will be used only in sports cars at Porsche’s performance and experience centers.
E-fuels are made by passing electricity through water. The electricity separates the hydrogen and oxygen from water. The hydrogen is then mixed with CO₂ to produce a liquid e-fuel, which can be produced using many renewable energy sources, such as solar and wind power. E-fuels follow the chemical structure of gasoline, making it possible for gas-powered cars to run on e-fuels almost without any change.
E-fuels can help ease the transform away from gas-powered cars, for those who may not be able to afford electric vehicles (EV). It will also help to reduce waste by keeping gas-powered cars in service, instead of throwing them away prematurely. Additionally, the use of e-fuels will not require new facility to be built unlike EVs. Existing gas stations and cars will be able to stay in use, which is already a big saving.
Despite the many benefits, opinions differ on whether e-fuels are truly eco-friendly. E-fuels are widely said to be nearly carbon neutral (碳中和), although an independent study indicates that e-fuels release the same amount of CO₂ as gasoline. Since e-fuels are still being developed and tested, their true impacts are still unknown. Meanwhile, e-fuels are very expensive to produce, partly due to energy loss during production. Unfortunately, only about half of the energy used in producing e-fuels is actually transformed into fuel. Additionally, only about 16% of the energy used in e-fuel production is actually used to power the car. Whereas, about 70% of energy is preserved when powering an EV. Even though the use of e-fuels will preserve existing facility, it will still take time and money to integrate it into everyday life. Currently, the price of e-fuels is nearly double the cost of regular fuel.
E-fuels are still a work in progress. Though opinions are divided on e-fuels, with more testing and development, they have been considered another way to help fight against the climate crisis. “There are currently more than 1.3 billion vehicles with combustion (内燃) engines worldwide. Many of these will be on the roads for decades to come, and e-fuels offer the owners of existing cars a nearly carbon-neutral alternative. With the e-fuels pilot plant, Porsche is playing a leading role in this development,” said Michael Steiner, member of the Executive Board for Development and Research at Porsche AG.
1. What can we learn from this passage?| A．E-fuels release no CO₂. |
| B．E-fuels were tested in Germany at first. |
| C．E-fuels are applicable to gas-powered cars. |
| D．E-fuels need to be mixed with CO₂ in actual use. |
| A．draw a conclusion. | B．present an opinion |
| C．further a discussion | D．provide a solution |
| A．Positive. | B．Dismissive. | C．Doubtful. | D．Objective. |
3 . 听下面一段较长对话，回答以下小题。
1. What seems to be the woman’s problem?| A．She didn’t feel well. | B．She lost her wallet. | C．Her car broke down. |
| A．To the hospital. | B．To her home. | C．To a taxi company. |
4 . Preparing Cities for Robot Cars
The possibility of self-driving robot cars has often seemed like a futurist’s dream, years away from materializing in the real world. Well, the future is apparently now. The California Department of Motor Vehicles began giving permits in April for companies to test truly self-driving cars on public roads. The state also cleared the way for companies to sell or rent out self-driving cars, and for companies to operate driverless taxi services. California, it should be noted, isn’t leading the way here. Companies have been testing their vehicles in cities across the country. It’s hard to predict when driverless cars will be everywhere on our roads. But however long it takes, the technology has the potential to change our transportation systems and our cities, for better or for worse, depending on how the transformation is regulated.
While much of the debate so far has been focused on the safety of driverless cars (and rightfully so), policymakers also should be talking about how self-driving vehicles can help reduce traffic jams, cut emissions (排放) and offer more convenient, affordable mobility options. The arrival of driverless vehicles is a chance to make sure that those vehicles are environmentally friendly and more shared.
Do we want to copy — or even worsen — the traffic of today with driverless cars? Imagine a future where most adults own individual self-driving vehicles. They tolerate long, slow journeys to and from work on packed highways because they can work, entertain themselves or sleep on the ride, which encourages urban spread. They take their driverless car to an appointment and set the empty vehicle to circle the building to avoid paying for parking. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a child or the dry cleaning, they send the self-driving minibus. The convenience even leads fewer people to take public transport — an unwelcome side effect researchers have already found in ride-hailing (叫车) services.
A study from the University of California at Davis suggested that replacing petrol-powered private cars worldwide with electric, self-driving and shared systems could reduce carbon emissions from transportation 80% and cut the cost of transportation infrastructure (基础设施) and operations 40% by 2050. Fewer emissions and cheaper travel sound pretty appealing. The first commercially available driverless cars will almost certainly be fielded by ride-hailing services, considering the cost of self-driving technology as well as liability and maintenance issues (责任与维护问题). But driverless car ownership could increase as the prices drop and more people become comfortable with the technology.
Policymakers should start thinking now about how to make sure the appearance of driverless vehicles doesn’t extend the worst aspects of the car-controlled transportation system we have today. The coming technological advancement presents a chance for cities and states to develop transportation systems designed to move more people, and more affordably. The car of the future is coming. We just have to plan for it.
What does the underlined word “fielded” in Paragraph 4 probably mean?
| A．Employed. |
| B．Replaced. |
| C．Shared. |
| D．Reduced. |
5 . Preparing Cities for Robot Cars
The possibility of self-driving robot cars has often seemed like a futurist’s dream, years away from materializing in the real world. Well, the future is apparently now. The California Department of Motor Vehicles began giving permits in April for companies to test truly self-driving cars on public roads. The state also cleared the way for companies to sell or rent out self-driving cars, and for companies to operate driverless taxi services. California, it should be noted, isn’t leading the way here. Companies have been testing their vehicles in cities across the country. It’s hard to predict when driverless cars will be everywhere on our roads. But however long it takes, the technology has the potential to change our transportation systems and our cities, for better or for worse, depending on how the transformation is regulated.
While much of the debate so far has been focused on the safety of driverless cars (and rightfully so), policymakers also should be talking about how self-driving vehicles can help reduce traffic jams, cut emissions (排放) and offer more convenient, affordable mobility options. The arrival of driverless vehicles is a chance to make sure that those vehicles are environmentally friendly and more shared.
Do we want to copy — or even worsen — the traffic of today with driverless cars? Imagine a future where most adults own individual self-driving vehicles. They tolerate long, slow journeys to and from work on packed highways because they can work, entertain themselves or sleep on the ride, which encourages urban spread. They take their driverless car to an appointment and set the empty vehicle to circle the building to avoid paying for parking. Instead of walking a few blocks to pick up a child or the dry cleaning, they send the self-driving minibus. The convenience even leads fewer people to take public transport — an unwelcome side effect researchers have already found in ride-hailing (叫车) services.
A study from the University of California at Davis suggested that replacing petrol-powered private cars worldwide with electric, self-driving and shared systems could reduce carbon emissions from transportation 80% and cut the cost of transportation infrastructure (基础设施) and operations 40% by 2050. Fewer emissions and cheaper travel sound pretty appealing. The first commercially available driverless cars will almost certainly be fielded by ride-hailing services, considering the cost of self-driving technology as well as liability and maintenance issues (责任与维护问题). But driverless car ownership could increase as the prices drop and more people become comfortable with the technology.
Policymakers should start thinking now about how to make sure the appearance of driverless vehicles doesn’t extend the worst aspects of the car-controlled transportation system we have today. The coming technological advancement presents a chance for cities and states to develop transportation systems designed to move more people, and more affordably. The car of the future is coming. We just have to plan for it.
1. According to the author, attention should be paid to how driverless cars can ________.| A．help deal with transportation-related problems |
| B．provide better services to customers |
| C．cause damage to our environment |
| D．make some people lose jobs |
| A．Safety. |
| B．Side effects. |
| C．Affordability. |
| D．Management. |
Electric scooter safety
If you look around the streets of London, you’ll see the many methods people use to move around. Whether it’s on a commute to work, a trip to the shops, or a sightseeing excursion, there are people on buses, the Tube, cars, motorbikes, bicycles and even roller skates. The roads are already congested (jammed); and now there’s a new addition: electric, or “e-scooters”.
This traditional children’s vehicle has become more sophisticated over the years. And now, with the addition of a small electric motor, it’s become a cheap and easy mode of transport. Scooting around town can be fun and doesn’t involve much effort, so it’s no wonder they’re becoming increasingly popular in cities around the world. But following what’s believed to be the first fatal accident involving an electric scooter in the UK, questions are being asked about their safety and whether traffic laws should be changed.
Some scooter riders have been seen on pavements; others on the road jumping red traffic lights, adding to the frustration of motorists stuck in jams. In the UK, the law states that riding one on the public highway or pavement is forbidden. Riders currently face a £300 fixed-penalty notice and six points on their driving licence for doing so. But, despite this, it seems the increasing popularity of e-scooters means they can be seen everywhere. And now users are calling on regulations to be changed.
The UK government is looking at how safely they can be used on the road and is ‘reviewing’ the law. But its transport minister, Michael Ellis, has told the BBC that: “Micromobility products are appearing in countries across the globe and are an exciting innovation for which we know there is demand. However, safety must always be our top priority when considering their use on public highways in this country.”
There’s no doubt there are dangers in riding a two-wheeled scooter. Despite the fact that some of them can exceed 30mph, they sometimes only have one brake and no lights. They also become unstable if the rider hits a pothole, and however confident the rider may be, larger vehicles on the road make them vulnerable (easy to be hurt). So it seems more work needs to be done to give e-scooters a safe and legal space to travel in.
1. What is it that makes an e-scooter easy to ride?2. Why are motorists annoyed by those e-scooter riders?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement. Then underline it and explain why.
To answer the call of e-scooter users, the UK government is preparing to change the law about where e-scooters can be used.
4. Do you think e-scooters should be allowed on public roads? Why? (In about 40 words)
If you park your car in the wrong place, a traffic policeman will soon find
If you’ve recently taken a flight from a major UK airport, then you may have noticed that more people are protesting air travel expansion and encouraging people to fly less. This is part of a larger environmental movement sweeping across Europe. Known as Flygskam or “flight-shaming”, the movement is encouraging people to stop taking flights as a means of transport and use more environmentally friendly transportation where they can.
The aviation (航空) currently accounts for about 2% of global emissions (排放) and is one of the fastest-growing polluters. Even worse, unlike most other sources of pollution, air travel results in pollutants released high up in the atmosphere.
Earlier this year, the UK government promised to reduce the UK’s emissions to “net zero” by 2050. However, according to projections from some researchers, emissions from the aviation could more than double by then even if planes become substantially more fuel-efficient. So, it’s unclear whether flying will be included in the UK’s target.
It’s hard to say exactly how big the movement is becoming, but Flygskam has become popular in social media. The number of Swedes taking the train for domestic journeys has risen by 8% this year as plane journeys inside the country have fallen. Clearly, Flygskam is having a measurable impact on people’s transport choices. Some people, however, have been critical of the movement because they say that it places blame or feelings of embarrassment onto the passengers when it is really the airlines and industries associated with it who should feel guilty for the impact that they are having on the planet.
1. What is Flygskam?2. How does flying influence the environment?
3. Please decide which part is false in the following statement, then underline it and explain why.
Flygskam has attracted social attention and some people have already participated in this campaign, so it is widely accepted.
4. Besides what is mentioned in the passage, what do you think of the movement of Flygskam? (In about 40 words)
Technology is constantly advancing.
China,
Recently, the “four new great inventions”
It is increasingly clear that China is leading in many new ways. A growing number of foreign
